Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 10 of 10
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 79--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to ministers and exempt staff members flying on government aircraft, including helicopters, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) which ministers and exempt staff members were on board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 98--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement by the Department of Justice Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: how much has been spent on settled cases, requests for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before appellate courts (such as the Ontario Superior Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia) related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School between 2013 and October 1, 2020, (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 99--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, between January 2019 and October 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay by organizations tasked with subgranting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 100--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regards to federal expenditures in the electoral district of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, broken down by fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20: what were the total amounts spent by the federal government, broken down by the (i) department or agency, (ii) community, (iii) contribution agreement, (iv) purpose of spending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 101--
Mr. Richard Cannings:
With regard to the Softwood Lumber Action Plan announced on June 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency and contribution agreement: (a) what companies, organizations or communities have received funding; (b) how much has been received by each community, company or organization; (c) for what purpose has each contribution been used; (d) for each community, company or organization, how many people have been assisted; (e) have all of the original $867 million dollars been expended, and, if not, how much remains to be expended; and (f) have additional funds been allocated to this action plan or under other government initiatives to assist those negatively impacted by the tariffs put in place by the United States?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 105--
Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to the activities of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) during the pandemic: (a) for each of the IRB’s four divisions, broken down by month and for the Eastern, Central and Vancouver divisions, how many hearings were held during the months of April to September in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) broken down by month, how many refugee protection claims eligible for file review were processed during the months of April to August in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) between April and August 2020, how many members, as a percentage, received their full pay; (d) what work was required for members working for the IRB; (e) on what date did the IRB Registry and mail room resume processing claims received by mail and fax; (f) as of March 16, 2020, how many Refugee Protection Division (RPD), Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Immigration Division (ID) and Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) files were pending (backlog) and what was the average time between referral and decision; (g) to date, how many RPD, RAD, ID and IAD files are awaiting a hearing; (h) to date, what is the average time between referral and decision; and (i) how many IRB employees have had vacation leave since the resumption of operations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 106--
Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to the activities of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) during the pandemic: (a) broken down by month, how many confirmations of permanent residence were issued during the months of April to August in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (b) broken down by month, how many visas (tourist, student, etc.) were issued during the months of April to August in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020; (c) to date, how many IRCC officers, as a percentage, received the necessary information equipment (telephones, computers, etc.) to enable them to work from home; (d) how many refugee protection claims were received by IRCC between March 17, 2020, and July 31, 2020, and of these, how many were referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB); and (e) what is the current processing time for permanent resident cards, and what was the processing time for the same period in 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 107--
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie:
With regard to federal public servants living in the National Capital Region (NCR): (a) how many public servants worked in the NCR between 2010 and 2019, inclusively, broken down by year and province of residence, and what percentage of public servants (i) lived in Quebec but worked in Ontario, (ii) lived in Ontario, but worked in Quebec, (iii) lived and worked in Ontario, (iv) lived and worked in Quebec; (b) for each year between 2010 and 2019, inclusively, what percentage of the public service payroll is represented by the wages of federal public servants living in the NCR and working in (i) Ontario, (ii) Quebec; and (c) for each year between 2010 and 2019, inclusively, what is the mother tongue of federal public servants living in the NCR and the language most often spoken at work, broken down by province of (i) residence, (ii) work?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 109--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the organization and structure of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) what was the organizational structure of PHAC, including a breakdown of how many employees or full-time equivalents (FTEs) working in each branch, location and in each position, as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) October 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of the positions that have been eliminated or modified since January 1, 2016, including the (i) previous job title, (ii) new job title, if applicable, (iii) previous job description, (iv) new job description, (v) number of positions impacted, (vi) date position was eliminated or modified, (vii) number of previous positions eliminated, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 110--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to drug products currently awaiting approval and market authorization by Health Canada: (a) what is the complete list of products currently awaiting approval; (b) for each product in (a), what was the (i) date the application was received by the government, (ii) manufacturer, (iii) product name, (iv) summary of product claims, including the list of diseases and conditions the product claims to treat, (v) expected date of decision of approval by Health Canada, if known; and (c) has the time period between the date of application and the decision date by Health Canada, for non-COVID-19 related products increased as a result of reallocating resources during the pandemic, and, if so, what are the specific details, including for which applications and for which products the time period has increased?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 112--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the organization and structure of Health Canada: (a) what was the organizational structure of Health Canada, including a breakdown of how many employees or full­time equivalents (FTEs) working in each branch, location, and in each position, as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) October 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of the positions that have been eliminated or modified since January 1, 2016, including the (i) previous job title, (ii) new job title, if applicable, (iii) previous job description, (iv) new job description, (v) number of positions impacted, (vi) date position was eliminated or modified, (vii) number of previous positions eliminated, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 113--
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to the decision by VIA Rail to layoff workers during the pandemic: (a) what is the total number of workers laid off since March 1, 2020; (b) what is the number of layoffs broken down by date; (c) on what date did the minister responsible for VIA Rail become informed of plans for each of the layoffs in (b); (d) why did VIA Rail not use the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) to prevent the layoffs; (e) will VIA Rail management and executives continue to receive bonuses in light of the layoffs; (f) what is the total amount of bonus money paid out so far in 2020; and (g) what is the total amount VIA Rail has received so far in 2020 through (i) CEWS, (ii) other sources of government funding, broken down by source?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the public consultation for the new five-dollar banknote launched by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on January 29, 2020 (which ended on March 11, 2020): (a) how many nomination submissions were made nominating a Canadian to appear on the next five-dollar banknote; (b) of the nomination submissions made for a Canadian to appear on the next five-dollar banknote, what names were submitted for consideration; (c) of the names listed in (b), how many nominations did each name receive; (d) based on the analytics software installed or run on the Bank of Canada website and server, how many individuals visited the consultation form listed on the Bank of Canada website between January 29, 2020, and March 11, 2020?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Bank of Canada received 52,971 names during the January 29 to March 11, 2020, public call for nominations, resulting in 625 qualified submissions.
With regard to part (b), the 625 qualified nominees can be found at the following link: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/banknoteable-5/nominees/.
With regard to part (c), the information is unavailable. The Bank of Canada does not collect information on the number of nominations received for each name.
With regard to part (d), the information is unavailable. The consultation form is not hosted on the Bank of Canada's website. However, the bank can report that 44,485 individuals submitted one or more names to the public call for nominations between January 29, 2020, to March 11, 2020.

Question No. 5--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy: (a) what is the number of employers who have received the subsidy; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) sector, (ii) province; (c) what are the total government expenditures to date through the subsidy; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) sector, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, parts (a) to (c), the latest information on the total amount of the Canada emergency wage subsidy expended is available on the Government of Canada website under “Claims to Date–CEWS” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics.html.
The CRA captures CEWS information regarding the total approved claims broken down by province or territory where the applicant resides, by industry sector and by size of applicant, by period beginning in May 2020, rather than in the manner requested above. The latest information, updated on a monthly basis, is available on the Government of Canada website under “CEWS Claims–Detailed Data” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html.

Question No. 15--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts entered into by the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, for the acquisition of architectural, engineering or other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of an international development assistance program or project valued between $98,000.00 and $99,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of services or construction contracts, (v) file number?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), with regard to government contracts valued between $98,000 and $99,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, the department’s delegation of financial and contracting signing authority delegates officers appointed to specific positions the authority to purchase services, in accordance with all applicable legislation, regulations, policies and directives.
Information on contracts for the time period requested is available under “Proactive Disclosure” at Open Government, https://open.canada.ca/en.

Question No. 16--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Atlantic Raven and the Atlantic Eagle: (a) how many Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) personnel are stationed on each ship by full-time equivalents; (b) how many hours per day while at sea are CCG personnel stationed on each ship; and (c) what are the costs for CCG personnel stationed on the tugs?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following information is for the time period of October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2020.
With regard to part (a), the number of Canadian Coast Guard personnel on board both Atlantic Raven and Atlantic Eagle varies per patrol. There are between one and six CCG employees stationed on each ship for a total of 3976.5 person-days or 10.9 person-years, to date.
With regard to part (b), each CCG employee lives on board and holds a twelve-hour shift while on board.
With regard to part (c), to date the Canadian Coast Guard has paid $206,778 on meals and quarters, and $294,620 on salaries for a total cost of $496,330 while CCG personnel are stationed on the tugs.

Question No. 17--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to personal protective equipment purchases since March 13, 2020: (a) what amount of supplies were ordered and prepaid for; (b) of the supplies in (a), how many units have yet to be received; (c) what amount of N95 or KN95 masks were ordered but deemed unacceptable by the Public Health Agency of Canada; (d) what was the dollar value associated with the masks mentioned in (c); (e) of the supplies in (c), were associated prepayment costs reimbursed to the buyer and if so, how much; (f) what is the dollar amount associated with each contract signed for N95, KN95, and surgical masks to date; and (g) what was the total prepaid to vendors for which no supplies were received or are not expected to be received?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since March, the Government of Canada has been engaged in an unprecedented effort to acquire supplies and equipment to ensure that our front-line health care workers, other essential services workers and Canadians stay safe and healthy. Throughout this pandemic, there has been a surge in global demand for the personal protective equipment, PPE, and medical supplies needed in response to COVID-19. As a result, the government has operated in a highly competitive market and faced risks posed by fragile international supply chains.
With regard to part (a), approximately 40% of PPE contracts have included a component of advanced payments. Such arrangements were necessary to ensure that Canada could secure access to supplies amidst intense international competition.
With regard to part (b), the most recent update on quantities ordered and received is available on PSPC's website at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/provisions-supplies-eng.html.
The quantities ordered for personal protective equipment and medical supplies are intended to meet short-term needs and anticipate Canada’s long-term needs as we continue to respond to COVID-19, while preparing for any eventuality over the coming months. “Quantities received” includes the approximate number of products that have been shipped and are in transit or have arrived at a Government of Canada warehouse. Some contracts are multi-year in nature with delivery scheduled beyond March 2021.
The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.
With regard to part (c), a total of 9.5 million KN95 respirators did not meet Government of Canada technical specifications for healthcare settings.
With regard to part (d), in order to support the negotiating position of the Government of Canada, this information cannot presently be disclosed.
With regard to part (e), negotiations are still taking place between the Government of Canada and the supplier.
With regard to part (f), as part of our commitment to transparency and accountability, we are publicly disclosing contracting information to the fullest extent possible. Supplier names and contract amounts for contracts entered into on behalf of other government departments for PPE and medical or laboratory equipment and supplies can be found on our COVID-19 contracting information page at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/aic-scr/contrats-contracts-eng.html. The information released will be adjusted over time as the procurement environment evolves.
With regard to part (g), all suppliers are expected to deliver on their contracts.

Question No. 19--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the COVID-19 Supply Council: what are the costs associated with the council, broken down by (i) salary top-ups and or additional pay for an individual sitting on the council, (ii) hospitality expenses, (iii) travel expenses broken down by type, (iv) in-person meeting facilities, (v) service reimbursements like Internet expenses, taxi or Uber costs, (vi) per diem expenses, (vii) incidentals?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as of September 23, 2020, there have been no costs associated with the COVID-19 supply council. Members volunteer their time and meetings are held by video conference.

Question No. 33--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the government’s decision not to exclude costs associated with grain drying from the carbon tax: (a) why did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say that the impact of these costs on farmers is “not that significant”, and what specific evidence does the minister have to back up this claim; (b) what is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s definition of “not that significant”; (c) what are the government’s estimates on how much revenue will be received yearly from the carbon tax on grain drying, for each of the next five years; and (d) has Farm Credit Canada conducted any analysis or studies on the impact of this tax on the income of farmers, and, if so, what were the findings of any such analysis or studies?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, regarding part (a), according to data provided by provincial governments and industry groups, the estimated cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying increases the costs of farm operations by between 0.05% and 0.38% for an average farm.
Costs of drying grain will vary depending upon farm size, location, province, fuel used, grain type and other factors. Costs will also vary from year to year, with 2019 being wetter than usual in many provinces and, therefore, translating into higher than normal grain drying expenditures.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, obtained estimates of the cost of drying grains, which have either been publicly released or which have been provided to AAFC by external sources, including producer organizations and provincial governments.
Each of these groups arrived at estimates of the cost of grain drying and of carbon pollution pricing associated with this activity using different underlying assumptions, which makes direct comparisons difficult. AAFC standardized the various estimates to arrive at more comparable results. For grain and oilseed farms, the average per-farm cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying was $210 in Alberta, $774 in Saskatchewan, $467 in Manitoba and $750 in Ontario.
Note that the analysis received from Alberta was based on their estimates of what the carbon pollution price would cost in the province. On June 1, 2019, Alberta repealed their own provincial carbon price fuel levy, and the federal fuel charge came into force on January 1, 2020. Therefore, Alberta farmers did not pay a federal carbon pollution price on their fuels used for grain drying during harvest in 2019.
AAFC provided further context to these estimates by relating them to information on net operating expenses. To do this, AAFC calculated the share of the cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying to overall net operating expenses for an average farm in each of the four provinces mentioned above. Net operating costs refer to all expenses, other than financing expenses and income taxes, incurred in the normal course of business, including cost of goods sold, selling and administrative expenses, and all other operating expenses. Data on net operating expenses was obtained from Statistics Canada’s agricultural taxation data program, or ATDP, which includes unincorporated and incorporated tax filer records used to estimate a range of financial agricultural variables. The financial variables disseminated by the ATDP include detailed farm revenues and expenses as well as farm and off-farm income of farm families.
Relating the estimates above to the value of net operating costs implies that the average per-farm cost of carbon pollution pricing associated with grain drying in 2019 was 0.05% of net operating costs in Alberta, 0.18% in Saskatchewan, 0.10% in Manitoba and 0.38% in Ontario.
Some variation still remains despite standardization. The estimates for Alberta and Saskatchewan are based on historical averages and, therefore, could be considered estimates for an average year in those provinces. The estimates for Manitoba and Ontario are based on 2019, a wet year, and therefore could be considered estimates for a year with higher-than-normal moisture levels.
AAFC assessed the costs of the federal carbon pollution pricing fuel charge in 2018. That assessment is publicly available at: https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/carbon_price_presentation-eng.pdf.
Regarding part (b), the above results show that the estimated costs of carbon pollution pricing to oilseed and grain farms amount to less than 0.5% of net operating expenses for 2019. This is for a hypothetical average farm. The financial impact on individual farms will depend on a myriad of factors, including the quantity of grain harvested, the type of grain produced, the share of grain drying done on farm versus at the elevator, the fuel used in grain drying, prices of fuel and the moisture level of crop at harvest, among other individual farm factors.
In addition, the agriculture sector receives significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors of the economy. The federal carbon pollution pricing system includes relief for farm activities that represents a significant part of the total cost of production that would otherwise impact their competitiveness. Thus, gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers for agricultural activities is exempt from the fuel charge, and biological emissions, for example, from livestock, manure and fertilizer application, are not priced. Recognizing that greenhouse heating fuel consumption for year-round operations represents a significant cost of production, the system also provides significant relief of 80% for natural gas and propane used by commercial greenhouse operators. Natural gas and propane use for heating, for barns and grain drying, are not exempted under the federal fuel charge as it was not considered a significant cost of production for an average grain and oilseed farm.
Regarding part (c), the purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that carbon pollution pricing applies broadly throughout Canada.
All direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system are returned to the jurisdiction of origin. In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the majority of the direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge are returned directly to households through climate action incentive payments.
AAFC assessed the costs of the federal carbon pollution pricing fuel charge in 2018. That assessment is publicly available at https://multimedia.agr.gc.ca/pack/pdf/carbon_price_presentation-eng.pdf.
Regarding part (d), Farm Credit Canada has not conducted analysis or studies on the impact of the carbon pollution pricing on the income of farmers.

Question No. 35--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the government's 2019 election commitment to plant 2 billion trees: (a) how many trees have been planted to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of trees planted to date by (i) province, (ii) municipality or geographical location; (c) what are the total expenditures to date related to the tree planting project; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by item or type of expenditure?
Response
Mr. Paul Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is fully committed to delivering on its commitment to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years.
At this time, Natural Resources Canada is working closely with other government departments, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Parks Canada Agency to develop a comprehensive approach for implementing the government’s plan to plant two billion trees. The government is also collaborating with provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous partners and communities, non-governmental organizations, industry, the private sector, landowners, researchers and other stakeholders to move this initiative forward.
Existing federal programs are already supporting tree planting, with approximately 150 million seedlings expected to be planted by 2022 through the low carbon economy fund, working with provinces and territories, as well as trees planted through the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, working with communities. The Government of Canada also continues to support the Highway of Heroes tree campaign, which has planted more than 750,000 of a planned two million trees between Trenton and Toronto.
As part of its commitment to supporting Canada’s forests and forest sector, the Government of Canada took early action in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing up to $30 million to small and medium-sized forest sector firms, including tree planting operations, to defray the costs associated with COVID-19 health and safety measures. This funding helped ensure a successful 2020 tree planting season and the planting of an estimated 600 million trees, while protecting workers and communities.
The Government of Canada is also adapting the investing in Canada infrastructure program to respond to the impacts of COVID-19. The program, delivered through bilateral agreements with provinces and territories, is being adjusted to add some flexibilities, expand project eligibility and accelerate approvals. A new temporary COVID-19 resilience stream, with over $3 billion available in existing funding, has been created to provide provinces and territories with added flexibility to fund quick-start, short-term projects that might not otherwise be eligible under the existing funding streams. The new stream will support projects such as: disaster mitigation and adaptation projects, including natural infrastructure; flood and fire mitigation; and tree planting and related infrastructure.

Question No. 46--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canadians living in Hong Kong: (a) how many Canadian citizens or permanent residents are currently registered as living in Hong Kong; (b) how many Canadian citizens or permanent residents has GAC confirmed are currently in Hong Kong; (c) what is the government’s best estimate of the total number of Canadian citizens and permanent residents currently residing in Hong Kong; and (d) on what date and what data did the government use to come up with the number in (c)?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
Regarding parts (a) to (d), presently, there are 4,208 Canadians who have registered with the voluntary registration of Canadians abroad service in Hong Kong. As registration with the service is voluntary, this is not a complete picture of the total number of Canadians in Hong Kong.
Global Affairs Canada does not maintain statistics on the total number of Canadian citizens or permanent residents in a specific country or territory. According to a survey led in 2011 by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, an estimated 295,930 Canadians were living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at that time.

Question No. 48--
Mr. Robert Kitchen:
With regard to revenue collected from the federal carbon tax: (a) excluding any rebates, what is the total amount of revenue collected by the government from the carbon tax or price on carbon since January 1, 2017; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what is the total amount of GST collected on the carbon tax since January 1, 2017; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) year, (ii) province?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 270 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, GGPPA, the Minister of the Environment must table a report in Parliament annually with respect to the administration of the act. The inaugural edition of the “GGPPA Annual Report” is expected to be published in December 2020, including details of proceeds collected and how they were disbursed.
Under the GGPPA, the federal carbon pollution pricing system has two parts: a regulatory charge on fuel, or federal fuel charge; and a regulatory trading system for industry, the federal output-based pricing system, OBPS.
Consumers do not pay the fuel charge directly to the federal government. Fuel producers and distributors are generally required to pay the fuel charge and, as a result, the price paid by consumers on goods and services would usually have the costs of the fuel charge embedded. Registered OBPS industrial facilities will not generally pay the fuel charge on fuels that they purchase. Instead, OBPS facilities are subject to the carbon pollution price on the portion of emissions above a facility emissions limit. The GGPPA requires that the direct proceeds from carbon pricing be returned to the jurisdiction of origin.
With respect to reporting on the federal fuel charge, the “GGPPA Annual Report” will include a financial summary of fuel charge proceeds assessed, by province and territory, for the first full year that the fuel charge was in effect, April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. During this period, the federal fuel charge applied at a rate of $20 per tonne, as of April 1, 2019, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; as of July 1, 2019, in Yukon and Nunavut; and, as of January 1, 2020, in Alberta. The federal government has proposed to stand down the federal fuel charge in New Brunswick, as of April 1, 2020, as the province introduced a provincial tax on carbon-emitting products that meets the federal benchmark stringency requirements.
The OBPS came into effect January 1, 2019. Unlike the fuel charge, however, assessments are done on an annual basis. Due to the impact of COVID-19 on reporting, the government extended the due date for reporting under the OBPS system in respect of the 2019 compliance year from June 1, 2020 to October 1, 2020. The final assessed values of proceeds due to the OBPS for this first compliance year, therefore, are not expected to be available until after the publication of the first edition of the “GGPPA Annual Report”.
The question requests information since January 1, 2017. No proceeds would arise from either the OBPS or federal fuel charge in calendar years 2017 or 2018, as these two systems did not come into effect until January 1, 2019 and April 1, 2019, respectively.
With respect to the goods and services tax, GST, the GST is levied on the final amount charged for a good or service. Under the GST, businesses are required to report and remit to the Canada Revenue Agency the total amount of GST collected on all goods and services they supply during a reporting period and do not report the GST collected in respect of specific goods and services or embedded costs.

Question No. 61--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the approximately 20,000 Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Robertson Island pen fire on December 20, 2019: (a) how many of the fish were reported recaptured to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) by Mowi ASA as of February 20, 2020; (b) how many independent reports of caught Atlantic salmon were reported to the DFO, broken down by date and location of catch; (c) how many of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus; (d) how much funding has the government provided to assist with recapture; and (e) how much compensation has the government provided to Mowi ASA?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), most of the salmon were removed from the pens prior to the escape event, and the rest of the farm was harvested following the fire. Mowi recovered and harvested 1,177 fish from within the predator netting at the Robertson Island site following the incident. Mowi did not recapture any escaped Atlantic salmon that left the site. It is widely believed that the escaped fish have been eaten by sea lions and other predators in the area. As per the company’s condition of licence, the reporting of the fish escape to DFO occurred within 24 of the discovery event.
With regard to (b), there have been no reports of recaptured fish. At the request of the ‘Namgis First Nation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, issued a scientific licence for up to three gillnets to recapture escaped Atlantic salmon from December 26 to December 29, 2019. Despite these efforts, no Atlantic salmon or other fish were caught during that time. Subsequently, the ‘Namgis First Nation requested another scientific licence to continue recapture efforts. This licence was issued from December 30, 2019 to January 3, 2020. However, no fish were recaptured.
With regard to (c), it is unknown whether any of the escaped fish were infected with Piscine orthoreovirus, PRV.
With regard to (d), the federal government has not provided any funding to assist with the recapture. However, DFO regional staff have engaged Mowi and stakeholders in the area to develop a strategic coordinated plan for monitoring.
With regard to (e), the federal government has not provided any compensation to Mowi pertaining to this escape event.

Question No. 63--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to the government's ethical apparel policy PN-132 and contract clause A3008C, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many times has the contract clause been breached by companies doing business with the government; (b) what are the details of each instance where a breach occurred, including (i) the date that the government advised the vendor that they were in breach, (ii) vendor, (iii) brand names involved, (iv) summary of breach; (c) for each instance in (b), did the government terminate the contract or issue a financial penalty to the vendor, and, if so, what are the details and amounts of the penalties; (d) how many investigations have been conducted to ensure compliance with PN-132, and, of those, how many vendors were found to be (i) in compliance, (ii) not in compliance; (e) does the policy consider ethical procurement certification for contracting below the first-tier subcontractor level; (f) what specific measures has the government taken, if any, to ensure that all vendors, including any contractors or sub­contractors of such vendors, are in compliance with the policy; (g) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure that any products produced by forced labour camps, and specifically the forced Uyghur labour camps in China, are not purchased by the government; (h) what is the government's policy, if it has one, in relation to the termination of contracts in cases where a second-, third-, or any level below the first-tier subcontractor are found to be noncompliant with PN-132; (i) what is the total number of employees or full-time equivalents assigned to ensure compliance with the ethical apparel policy; and (j) for each employee in (i), what percentage of their job has been assigned to investigate or ensure compliance?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. With regard to parts (a) to (d), presently, there are 4,208 Canadians who have registered with the voluntary registration of Canadians abroad service in Hong Kong. As registration with the service is voluntary, this is not a complete picture of the total number of Canadians in Hong Kong.
Global Affairs Canada does not maintain statistics on the total number of Canadians citizens or permanent residents in a specific country or territory.
According to a survey led in 2011 by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, an estimated 295,930 Canadians were living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, SAR, at that time.

Question No. 64--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to what the Prime Minister describes as the "due diligence" conducted by government officials in relation to the original decision to have the WE organization or WE Charity administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG): (a) how many officials were involved in conducting the due diligence; (b) who conducted the due diligence; (c) who was in charge of overseeing the due diligence process; (d) did the due diligence process examine WE's recent corporate governance or financial issues; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, why did the officials still recommend that WE be chosen to administer the CSSG; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why were such issues not examined in the due diligence process; and (g) on what date did the due diligence process in relation to WE (i) begin, (ii) end?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, officials from ESDC explained in several appearances before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that contribution agreements are regularly used by the government to further policy objectives and engage a wide diversity of skills and resources outside the government.
ESDC began discussions in early May 2020 with WE Charity. Prior to entering into the contribution agreement, ESDC assessed the organization’s eligibility and capacity to deliver a project against the terms and conditions of a program or initiative and the policy objectives and parameters of the Canada student service grant, CSSG; considered WE Charity’s standing, including its completion of projects, results achieved and good financial standing on previous projects, by reviewing past projects where WE Charity received funding for project delivery from ESDC; and articulated clauses in the contribution agreement on accountability and results to mitigate any risks associated with the project development.
ESDC also outlined financial controls in the contribution agreement to govern the organization’s appropriate use of funds, by including the following: payment clauses to advance funds based on project activities and to minimize the potential of overpayment; interest clauses requiring that any interest earned be either directed towards the project or returned to the Crown; repayment clauses governing the return of ineligible expenditures or funds that were not used for the project; project records, reporting and audit clauses holding the funding recipient accountable, allowing the department to track project progress, document results, provide financial accounting and track compliance; and a requirement for audited financial statements to reconcile expenditures at the end of the project.
Given the nature and amount of the agreement, due diligence was performed at all levels by employees and management within the skills and employment branch, program operations branch, chief financial officer branch and legal services branch within ESDC from the time negotiations on the contribution agreement commenced on May 5, 2020.

Question No. 65--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to Transport Canada’s (TC) announcement on November 1, 2017, to improve local maritime situational awareness and reduce marine traffic congestion through the Oceans Protection Plan, specifically with respect to the $500,000 national Anchorages Initiative (NAI) to “bring together government, the marine industry, Indigenous peoples and stakeholder communities to develop a sustainable national anchorage framework”: (a) in terms of subject matter, what areas of research has TC contracted, and who are the vendors; (b) who is currently directing the NAI and which of TC's federal and regional offices reports to the said director; (c) what concrete governmental actions, as a result of the NAI, can be expected by the initiative’s estimated completion date of fall 2020; (d) which First Nations peoples and affected West Coast communities (i) have been consulted, (ii) have arrangements for NAI consultations in place; and (e) at the present date, how much of the $500,000 budget allocated for the NAI remains unspent?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the World Maritime University completed three comparative research studies for Transport Canada. These studies examined the impacts of anchoring and related mitigation measures, technologies and practices; the demand for anchoring outside the jurisdiction of major public ports in Canada; and international approaches to the management and oversight of anchorages outside the jurisdictions of major public ports.
With regard to part (b), the anchorages initiative is led by Transport Canada’s marine policy directorate in the national capital region.
With regard to part (c), Transport Canada will consult on a proposed approach to clarifying the governance and management of anchorages outside current port boundaries, with a view to mitigating socio-environmental impacts while promoting economic efficiency. As part of this work, best practices for the behaviour of large vessels at anchor will be advanced.
Given the impacts of COVID-19 on timelines and the need to ensure effective consultations with indigenous groups and other key stakeholders, the anchorages initiative will continue its work through to the end of the five-year mandate of the oceans protection plan.
With regard to part (d)(i), the following first nations peoples and affected west coast communities have been engaged: Snuneymuxw First Nation, Stz'uminus First Nation, Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, Tseycum First Nation, Pauquachin First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, Tsawout First Nation, Malahat First Nation, Tsawwassen First Nation, Cowichan Nation Alliance, Coast Salish Development Corporation, Islands Trust, Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages Society, Anchorages Concern Thetis, Cowichan Bay Ship Watch Society, Plumper Sound Protection Association, Protection Island Neighborhood Association, Stuart Channel Stewards, Saltair Ocean Protection Committee and Lady Smith Anchorage Watch.
In addition, the anchorages initiative participated in the following oceans protection plan engagement sessions attended by first nations, industry, government and community groups: Pacific Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Winter 2020, Vancouver, B.C., January 30, 2020; North Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Fall 2018, Prince Rupert, B.C., November 22, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Presentation to Comité de concertation sur la navigation, Bécancour, Quebec, October 30, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Fall 2018, Vancouver, B.C., October 22, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Indigenous Workshop Spring 2018, Nanaimo, B.C., May 8-9, 2018; Atlantic Region Oceans Protection Plan Day with Indigenous Groups and Industry, St. John’s, NFLD, March 28, 2018; South Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Spring 2018, Vancouver, B.C., March 20-21, 2018; North Coast Oceans Protection Plan Dialogue Forum Spring 2018, Prince Rupert, B.C., March 8-9, 2018; Atlantic Oceans Protection Plan Day with Indigenous Groups, Moncton N.B., January 26, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Presentation at the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Commercial Fisheries Conference, Moncton N.B., January 25, 2018; Atlantic Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Dartmouth, N.S., June 19, 2018; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Quebec, Quebec, June 12, 2018 ; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Quebec, Quebec, November 7-8, 2017; Oceans Protection Plan Engagement Session, Vancouver, B.C., November 2, 2017.
With regard to part (d)(ii), additional engagement with indigenous groups and west coast communities will be undertaken once a proposed approach to the governance and management of anchorages is confirmed. No dates have been set at this point.
With regard to part (e), at the present date, the $500,000 budget allocated for the NAI has been spent.

Question No. 78--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard: (a) was a cost-benefit analysis of implementing such a regime conducted, and if not, why not; and (b) if such analysis was conducted, what are details including (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) when was it conducted, (iii) what were the national results, (iv) what were the provincial or territorial results, (v) what is the website address of where analysis results were published, if applicable, (vi) if results were not published online, what is the rationale for not releasing the results?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed clean fuel standard regulations are on track to be published in Canada Gazette, part I in fall 2020, followed by a 75-day comment period. A regulatory impact analysis statement, which includes a cost-benefit analysis, will accompany the publication of the draft clean fuel standard regulations in Canada Gazette, part I. The cost-benefit analysis will provide an opportunity to engage with provinces, territories and stakeholders on, among other elements, the regional and sector economic impacts of the regulations.
Since the announcement of the clean fuel standard in 2016, there has been significant engagement on the design of the regulations. This has included engagement on the compliance pathways, including assumptions around technology update and costs.
In February 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada released the Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for the Clean Fuel Standard for comment. The framework can be found at www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/energy-production/fuel-regulations/clean-fuel-standard/cost-benefit-analysis-framework-february-2019.html.
Most recently, an update to the framework was provided in June 2020.

Question No. 85--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to government employees working from home during the pandemic, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total number of employees whose primary work location was, prior to the pandemic (or as of January 1, 2020), (i) in a government building or office space, (ii) at a home office or private residence, (iii) other, such as outdoor or travelling; (b) what is the total number of employees who worked from a government building or office space as of (i) April 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020, (iii) September 28, 2020; (c) what is the total number of employees who worked from a home office or private residence as of (i) April 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020, (iii) September 28, 2020; (d) what is the number of employees who initially were advised or instructed to work from home during the pandemic; (e) how many of the employees in (d) have since returned to work in a government building or office space, and when did they return, broken down by how many employees returned on each date; (f) of the employees in (d), how many were able to (i) complete all or most of their regular employment duties from home, (ii) some of their regular employment duties from home, (iii) few or none of their regular employment duties from home; (g) how many employees were provided with or had access to government laptop computers or similar type devices so that they could continue performing their regular employment duties from home during the pandemic; and (h) how many employees, who were advised or instructed to work from home during the pandemic, were not provided or had access to a government laptop or similar type of device while working from home?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting employees, whether physically in the workplace or at home. Together and apart, the government will continue to deliver information, advice, programs and services that Canadians need.
The Government of Canada continues to take exceptional measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic and to protect the health and safety of its employees. The vast majority of public servants are working, either remotely or on site, to continue effectively delivering key programs and services to Canadians under these unprecedented circumstances.
Public health authorities have signalled that physical distancing requirements must remain in place. This means that many public service employees will continue to work remotely, and effectively, for the foreseeable future. Decisions regarding access to worksites are being made based on government-wide guidance and take into consideration the local public health situation and the nature of the work. Access to federal worksites for employees varies from organization to organization, based on operational requirements.
The physical and psychological health and safety of employees remain an absolute priority for the Government of Canada. As many parts of the country are seeing a resurgence in cases, the Government of Canada continues to be guided by the decisions of public health authorities, including Canada’s chief public health officer, and the direction of provinces/territories and cities. While the COVID-19 pandemic presents ongoing challenges for Canadians and for the public service, the government has been moving collectively and successfully towards managing COVID-19 as part of its ongoing operations and the continued delivery of key programs and services to Canadians.

Question No. 87--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the government's firearms prohibitions and buyback program: (a) did the government conduct, either internally or externally, any analysis on the impacts of alternative mechanisms to address firearms related crimes; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of each such analysis, including (i) the alternate mechanism analyzed, (ii) who conducted the analysis, (iii) the date the analysis was provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iv) findings, including any associated cost projections?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on May 1, 2020, the Government of Canada announced the immediate prohibition of over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms that are specifically designed for soldiers to shoot other soldiers. The prohibition limits access to the most dangerous firearms and removes them from the Canadian market.
For decades, police chiefs had been advocating for such a measure. In 1986, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CACP, declared there was a “worldwide surplus” of accessible firearms that were designed for warfare and for the federal government to “take the steps necessary to end this increase in available weapons.” In 1994, the CACP declared that “military assault rifles” were produced for the “sole purpose of killing people in large numbers” and urged the Minister of Justice to enact legislation to “ban all military assault rifles except for law enforcement and military purposes.” Last September, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police declared their support for a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In their view, “these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement.” Additionally, the current chief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has declared that this prohibition “finds balance” as it “ensures the safety of our members” while not limiting “those that recreationally participate in hunting or those that actually live off the land.”
Between October 2018 and February 2019, the government held extensive public engagement on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms with the provinces and territories, municipalities, indigenous groups, law enforcement, community organizations and industry to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms. While the engagement was framed by the examination of a potential ban, the discussion explored several potential measures to reduce violent crime including enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, investments to support initiatives that reduce violence, and strengthening safe firearms storage requirements to help prevent theft. Many participants expressed that a ban on assault-style firearms was needed in order to protect public safety.
We put in place an amnesty to give existing owners time to come into compliance with the law. The amnesty order also provides a temporary exception for indigenous persons exercising section 35 constitutional rights to hunt and for sustenance hunters to allow for continued use of newly prohibited firearms, if previously non-restricted, until a suitable replacement can be found. The government remains committed to introducing a buyback program during the amnesty period. However, the costs associated with implementing a buyback program have not yet been finalized.
While the prohibition was a crucial initiative, it was only the first step in the government’s gun control agenda. The government also intends to bring forward targeted measures to further address the criminal use of firearms. We will strengthen firearms storage requirements to deter theft. Following hundreds of millions of dollars cut by the previous Conservative government, we will continue to make the necessary investments to enhance our tracing capacity and reduce the number of guns being smuggled across the border. We will continue to also work with our partners from other levels of government to develop an approach to address handguns.
The government also intends to build on previous investments in youth and community measures, because we know that better social conditions lead to a reduction in crime and violence.
These initiatives were identified as a priority by our government, both in the throne speech and in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and we are committed to addressing these important issues as soon as possible.

Question No. 88--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to the firearms regulations and prohibitions published in the Canada Gazette on May 1, 2020, and the proposed gun buyback program: (a) what is the total projected cost of the buyback program, broken down by type of expense; (b) is the projected cost a guess, or did the government use a formula or formal analysis to arrive at the projected cost; and (c) what are the details of any formula or analysis used by the government in coming up with the projected cost?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government remains committed to introducing a buyback program that offers fair compensation to affected owners and businesses, while making sure implementation and management costs of such a program are well priced and sustainable. To assist in meeting this dual objective, Public Safety is seeking to obtain professional services through a competitive process for the provision of advice on options and approaches to further inform ongoing efforts to develop a buyback program. Specifically, this advice would focus on firearms pricing models, as well as on the design, implementation and management of a buyback program for recently prohibited firearms.
As such, the costs associated with implementing and managing a buyback program have not been finalized yet and will be further refined in the coming months as program design development work progresses. Public Safety, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, and its partners are looking at a range of options, and will work with the provinces and territories to get this right for law-abiding gun owners and businesses.
Albas, DanAnimal diseasesAtlantic salmonBibeau, Marie-ClaudeBuy backCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada Student Service GrantCanadians in foreign countriesCarbon taxChampagne, François-PhilippeCharitable organizations ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 1--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the fleet of Airbus A310-300s operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force and designated CC-150 Polaris: (a) how many flights has the fleet flown since January 1, 2020; (b) for each flight since January 1, 2020, what was the departure location and destination location of each flight, including city name and airport code or identifier; (c) for each flight listed in (b), what was the aircraft identifier of the aircraft used in each flight; (d) for each flight listed in (b), what were the names of all passengers who travelled on each flight; (e) of all the flights listed in (b), which flights carried the Prime Minister as a passenger; (f) of all the flights listed in (e), what was the total distance flown in kilometres; (g) for the flights listed in (b), what was the total cost to the government for operating these flights; and (h) for the flights listed in (e), what was the total cost to the government for operating these flights?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 3--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to undertakings to prepare government offices for safe reopening following the COVID-19 pandemic since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on plexiglass for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on cough and sneeze guards for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department; (c) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on protection partitions for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department; and (d) what is the total amount of money the government has spent on custom glass (for health protection) for use in government offices or centres, broken down by purchase order and by department?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 4--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to requests filed for access to information with each government institution under the Access to Information Act since October 1, 2019: (a) how many access to information requests were made with each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution and by month; (b) of the requests listed in (a), how many requests were completed and responded to by each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution, within the statutory deadline of 30 calendar days; (c) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension of fewer than 91 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (d) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 91 days but fewer than 151 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (e) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 151 days but fewer than 251 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (f) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 251 days but fewer than 365 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (g) of the requests listed in (a), how many of the requests required the department to apply an extension greater than 366 days to respond, broken down by each government institution; (h) for each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution, how many full-time equivalent employees were staffing the access to information and privacy directorate or sector; and (i) for each government institution, broken down alphabetically by institution, how many individuals are listed on the delegation orders under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 6--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to loans made under the Canada Emergency Business Account: (a) what is the total number of loans made through the program; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) sector, (ii) province, (iii) size of business; (c) what is the total amount of loans provided through the program; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) sector, (ii) province, (iii) size of business?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 7--
Mr. Marty Morantz:
With regard to the Interim Order Respecting Drugs, Medical Devices and Foods for a Special Dietary Purpose in Relation to COVID-19: (a) how many applications for the importation or sale of products were received by the government in relation to the order; (b) what is the breakdown of the number of applications by product or type of product; (c) what is the government’s standard or goal for time between when an application is received and when a permit is issued; (d) what is the average time between when an application is received and a permit is issued; and (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by type of product?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 8--
Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:
With regard to converting government workplaces to accommodate those employees returning to work: (a) what are the final dollar amounts incurred by each department to prepare physical workplaces in government buildings; (b) what resources are being converted by each department to accommodate employees returning to work; (c) what are the additional funds being provided to each department for custodial services; (d) are employees working in physical distancing zones; (e) broken down by department, what percentage of employees will be allowed to work from their desks or physical government office spaces; and (f) will the government be providing hazard pay to those employees who must work from their physical government office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 9--
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall:
With regard to the use of security notifications, also known as security (staff safety) threat flags, applied to users of Veterans Affairs Canada’s (VAC) Client Service Delivery Network (CSDN) from November 4, 2015, to present: (a) how many security threat flags existed at the beginning of the time frame; (b) how many new security threat flags have been added during this time frame; (c) how many security threat flags have been removed during the time frame; (d) what is the total number of VAC clients who are currently subject to a security threat flag; (e) of the new security threat flags added since November 4, 2015, how many users of VAC’s CSDN were informed of a security threat flag placed on their file, and of these, how many users of VAC’s CSDN were provided with an explanation as to why a security threat flag was placed on their file; (f) what directives exist within VAC on permissible reasons for a security threat flag to be placed on the file of a CSDN user; (g) what directives exist within VAC pertaining to specific services that can be denied to a CSDN user with a security threat flag placed on their file; and (h) how many veterans have been subject to (i) denied, (ii) delayed, VAC services or financial aid as a result of a security threat flag being placed on their file during this time frame?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 10--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to government programs and services temporarily suspended, delayed or shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what is the complete list of programs and services impacted, broken down by department of agency; (b) how was each program or service in (a) impacted; and (c) what is the start and end dates for each of these changes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 11--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to recruitment and hiring at Global Affairs Canada (GAC), for the last 10 years: (a) what is the total number of individuals who have (i) applied for GAC seconded positions through CANADEM, (ii) been accepted as candidates, (iii) been successfully recruited; (b) how many individuals who identify themselves as a member of a visible minority have (i) applied for GAC seconded positions through CANADEM, (ii) been accepted as candidates, (iii) been successfully recruited; (c) how many candidates were successfully recruited within GAC itself; and (d) how many candidates, who identify themselves as members of a visible minority were successfully recruited within GAC itself?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 12--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government projections of the impacts of the COVID-19 on the viability of small and medium-sized businesses: (a) how many small and medium-sized businesses does the government project will either go bankrupt or otherwise permanently cease operations by the end of (i) 2020, (ii) 2021; (b) what percentage of small and medium-sized businesses does the numbers in (a) represent; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by industry, sector and province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 13--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts for services and construction valued between $39,000.00 and $39,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (il) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of services or construction contracts, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 14--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to government contracts for architectural, engineering and other services required in respect of the planning, design, preparation or supervision of the construction, repair, renovation or restoration of a work valued between $98,000.00 and $99,999.99, signed since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of services or construction contracts, (v) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 18--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to public service employees between March 15, 2020, and September 21, 2020, broken down by department and by week: (a) how many public servants worked from home; (b) how much has been paid out in overtime to employees; (c) how many vacation days have been used; and (d) how many vacation days were used during this same period in 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 20--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to Order in Council SOR/2020-96 published on May 1, 2020, which prohibited a number of previously non-restricted and restricted firearms, and the Canadian Firearms Safety Course: (a) what is the government’s formal technical definition of “assault-style firearms”; (b) when did the government come up with the definition, and in what government publication was the definition first used; and (c) which current members of cabinet have successfully completed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 21--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to defaulted student loans owing for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, broken down by year: (a) how many student loans were in default; (b) what is the average age of the loans; (c) how many loans are in default because the loan holder has left the country; (d) what is the average reported T4 income for each of 2018 and 2019 defaulted loan holder; (e) how much was spent on collections agencies either in fees or their commissioned portion of collected loans; and (f) how much has been recouped by collection agencies?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to recipients of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit: what is the number of recipients based on 2019 income, broken down by federal income tax bracket?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 23--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to accommodating the work from home environment for government employees since March 13, 2020: (a) what is the total amount spent on furniture, equipment, including IT equipment, and services, including home Internet reimbursement; (b) of the purchases in (a) what is the breakdown per department by (i) date of purchase, (ii) object code it was purchased under, (iii) type of furniture, equipment or services, (iv) final cost of furniture, equipment or services; (d) what were the costs incurred for delivery of items in (a); and (d) were subscriptions purchased during this period, and if so (i) what were the subscriptions for, (ii) what were the costs associated for these subscriptions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 24--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the responses to questions on the Order Paper earlier this year during the first session of the 43rd Parliament by the Minister of National Defence, which stated that “At this time, National Defence is unable to prepare and validate a comprehensive response” due to the COVID-19 situation: what is the Minister of National Defence’s comprehensive response to each question on the Order Paper where such a response was provided, broken down by question?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25--
Mrs. Tamara Jansen:
With regard to the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses from the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) to persons, laboratories, and institutions in China: (a) who in China requested the transfer; (b) other than the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which laboratories in China requested the transfer; (c) for the answers in (a) and (b) which are affiliated with the military of China; (d) on what date was the WIV’s request for the transfer received by the NML; (e) what scientific research was proposed, or what other scientific rationale was put forth, by the WIV or the NML scientists to justify the transfer of Ebola and Henipah viruses; (f) what materials were authorized for transfer pursuant to Transfer Authorization NML-TA-18-0480, dated October 29, 2018; (g) did the NML receive payment of $75, per its commercial invoice of March 27, 2019, for the transfer, and on what date was payment received; (h) what consideration or compensation was received from China in exchange for providing this material, broken down by amount or details of the consideration or compensation received by each recipient organization; (i) has the government requested China to destroy or return the viruses and, if not, why; (j) did Canada include, as a term of the transfer, a prohibition on the WIV further transferring the viruses with others inside or outside China, except with Canada’s consent; (k) what due diligence did the NML perform to ensure that the WIF and other institutions referred to in (b) would not make use of the transferred viruses for military research or uses; (l) what inspections or audits did the NML perform of the WIV and other institutions referred to in (b) to ensure that they were able to handle the transferred viruses safely and without diversion to military research or uses; (m) what were the findings of the inspections or audits referred to in (l), in summary; (n) after the transfer, what follow-up has Canada conducted with the institutions referred to in (b) to ensure that the only research being performed with the transferred viruses is that which was disclosed at the time of the request for the transfer; (o) what intellectual property protections did Canada set in place before sending the transferred viruses to the persons and institutions referred to in (a) and (b); (p) of the Ebola virus strains sent to the WIV, what percentages of the NML’s total Ebola collection and Ebola collection authorized for sharing is represented by the material transferred; (q) other than the study entitled “Equine-Origin Immunoglobulin Fragments Protect Nonhuman Primates from Ebola Virus Disease”, which other published or unpublished studies did the NML scientists perform with scientists affiliated with the military of China; (r) which other studies are the NML scientists currently performing with scientists affiliated with the WIV, China’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences, or other parts of China’s military establishment; (s) what is the reason that Anders Leung of the NML attempted to send the transferred viruses in incorrect packaging (type PI650), and only changed its packaging to the correct standard (type PI620) after being questioned by the Chinese on February 20, 2019; (t) has the NML conducted an audit of the error of using unsafe packaging to transfer the viruses, and what in summary were its conclusions; (u) what is the reason that Allan Lau and Heidi Wood of the NML wrote on March 28, 2019, that they were “really hoping that this [the transferred viruses] goes through Vancouver” instead of Toronto on Air Canada, and “Fingers crossed!” for this specific routing; (v) what is the complete flight itinerary, including airlines and connecting airports, for the transfer; (w) were all airlines and airports on the flight itinerary informed by the NML that Ebola and Henipah viruses would be in their custody; (x) with reference to the email of Marie Gharib of the NML on March 27, 2019, other than Ebola and Henipah viruses, which other pathogens were requested by the WIV; (y) since the date of the request for transfer, other than Ebola and Henipah viruses, which other pathogens has the NML transferred or sought to transfer to the WIV; (z) did the NML inform Canada’s security establishment, including the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, or other such entity, of the transfer before it occurred, and, if not, why not; (aa) what is the reason that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) redacted the name of the transfer recipient from documents disclosed to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) under the Access to Information Act, when the PHAC later willingly disclosed that information to the CBC; (bb) does Canada have any policy prohibiting the export of risk group 3 and 4 pathogens to countries, such as China, that conduct gain-of-function experiments, and in summary what is that policy; (cc) if Canada does not have any policy referred to in (bb), why not; (dd) what is the reason that did the NML or individual employees sought and obtained no permits or authorizations under the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Export Control Act, or related legislation prior to the transfer; (ee) what legal controls prevent the NML or other government laboratories sending group 3 or 4 pathogens to laboratories associated with foreign militaries or laboratories that conduct gain-of-function experiments; (ff) with respect to the September 14, 2018, email of Matthew Gilmour, in which he writes that “no certifications [were] provided [by the WIV], they simply cite they have them”, why did the NML proceed to transfer Ebola and Henipah viruses without proof of certification to handle them safely; and (gg) with respect to the September 14, 2018, email of Matthew Gilmour, in which he asked “Are there materials that [WIV] have that we would benefit from receiving? Other VHF? High path flu?”, did the NML request these or any other materials in exchange for the transfer, and did the NML receive them?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26--
Mrs. Tamara Jansen:
With regard to both the administrative and RCMP investigations of the National Microbiology Lab (NML), Xiangguo Qiu, and Keding Cheng: (a) with respect to the decision of the NML and the RCMP to remove Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng from the NML facilities on July 5, 2019, what is the cause of delay that has prevented that the NML and the RCMP investigations concluding; (b) in light of a statement by the Public Health Agency of Canada to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which was reported on June 14, 2020, and which stated, “the administrative investigation of [Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng] is not related to the shipment of virus samples to China”, what are these two scientists being investigated for; (c) did Canada receive information from foreign law enforcement or intelligence agencies which led to the investigations against Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng, and, in summary, what was alleged; (d) which other individuals apart from Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng are implicated in the investigations; (e) are Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng still in Canada; (f) are Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng cooperating with law enforcement in the investigations; (g) are Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng on paid leave, unpaid leave, or terminated from the NML; (h) what connection is there between the investigations of Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng and the investigation by the United States National Institutes of Health which has resulted in 54 scientists losing their jobs mainly due to receiving foreign funding from China, as reported by the journal Science on June 12, 2020; (i) does the government possess information that Dr. Qiu or Dr. Cheng solicited or received funding from a Chinese institution, and, in summary what is that information; and (j) when are the investigations expected to conclude, and will their findings be made public?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: (a) what is the role or mandate of each department, agency, Crown corporation and any programs thereof in advancing Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda; (b) what has the government, as a whole, committed to achieving and in what timeline; (c) what projects are currently in place to achieve these goals; (d) has the government liaised with sub-national governments, groups and organizations to achieve these goals; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what governments, groups and organizations; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why not; (g) how much money has the government allocated to funding initiatives in each fiscal year since 2010-11, broken down by program and sub-program; (h) in each year, how much allocated funding was lapsed for each program and subprogram; (i) in each case where funding was lapsed, what was the reason; (j) have any additional funds been allocated to this initiative; (k) for each fiscal year since 2010-2011, what organizations, governments, groups and companies, have received funding connected to Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda; and (l) how much did organizations, governments, groups and companies in (k) (i) request, (ii) receive, including if the received funding was in the form of grants, contributions, loans or other spending?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 28--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the government’s campaign for a United Nations Security Council seat: (a) how much funding has been allocated, spent and lapsed in each fiscal year since 2014-15 on the campaign; and (b) broken down by month since November 2015, what meetings and phone calls did government officials at the executive level hold to advance the goal of winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 29--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With respect to the government’s response to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, broken down by month since June 2019: (a) what meetings and phone calls did government officials at the executive level hold to craft the national action plan in response to the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; and (b) what external stakeholders were consulted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 30--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency activities, agreements guaranteeing non-referral to the criminal investigation sector and cases referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, between 2011-12 and 2019-20, broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many audits resulting in reassessments were concluded; (b) of the agreements concluded in (a), what was the total amount recovered; (c) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many resulted in penalties for gross negligence; (d) of the agreements concluded in (c), what was the total amount of penalties; (e) of the agreements concluded in (a), how many related to bank accounts held outside Canada; and (f) how many audits resulting in assessments were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 31--
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the Wataynikaneyap Transmission Project: (a) is it the government’s policy to choose foreign companies over Canadian companies for this or similar projects; (b) which company or companies supplied transformers to the project; (c) were transformers rated above 60MVA supplied to the project subject to the applicable 35% or more import tariff, and, if so, was this tariff actually collected; and (d) broken down by transformer, what was the price charged to the project of any transformers rated (i) above 60MVA, (ii) below 60MVA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 32--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s approach to workspace-in-the-home expense deductions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic’s stay-at-home guidelines: are individuals who had to use areas of their homes not normally used for work, such as dining or living rooms, as a temporary office during the pandemic entitled to the deductions, and, if so, how should individuals calculate which portions of their mortgage, rent, or other expenses are deductible?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the status of government employees since March, 1, 2020: (a) how many employees have been placed on "Other Leave With Pay" (Treasury Board Code 699) at some point since March 1, 2020; (b) how many employees have been placed on other types of leave, excluding vacation, maternity or paternity leave, at some point since March 1, 2020, broken down by type of leave and Treasury Board code; (c) of the employees in (a), how many are still currently on leave; and (d) of the employees in (b), how many are still currently on leave, broken down by type of leave?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, since 2005: how many meat and poultry processing plants have had their licences cancelled, broken down by year and province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 37--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to instances where retiring Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Members were negatively financially impacted as a result of having their official release date scheduled for a weekend or holiday, as opposed to a regular business day, since January 1, 2016, and broken down by year: (a) how many times has a release administrator recommended a CAF Member’s release date occur on a weekend or holiday; (b) how many times did a CAF Member’s release date occur on a holiday; (c) how many Members have had payments or coverage from (i) SISIP Financial, (ii) other entities, cancelled or reduced as a result of the official release date occurring on a weekend or holiday; (d) were any instructions, directives, or advice issued to any release administrator asking them not to schedule release dates on a weekend or holiday in order to preserve CAF Member’s benefits, and, if so, what are the details; (e) were any instructions, directives, or advice issued to any release administrator asking them to schedule certain release dates on a weekend or holiday, and, if so, what are the details; and (f) what action, if any, has the Minister of National Defense taken to restore any payments or benefits lost as a result of the scheduling of a CAF Member’s release date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 38--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to federal grants, contributions, non-repayable loans, or similar type of funding provided to telecommunications companies since 2009: what are the details of all such funding, including the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) type of funding, (iv) department providing the funding, (v) name of program through which funding was provided, (vi) project description, (vii) start and completion, (viii) project location, (ix) amount of federal funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 39--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces personnel deployed to long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what personal protective equipment (PPE) was issued to Canadian Armed Forces members deployed to long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec; and (b) for each type of PPE in (a), what was the (i) model, (ii) purchase date, (iii) purchase order number, (iv) number ordered, (v) number delivered, (vi) supplier company, (vii) expiration date of the product, (viii) location where the stockpile was stored?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 40--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy, broken down by name of applicant, type of applicant (e.g. non-profit, for-profit, coop), stream (e.g. new construction, revitalization), date of submission, province, number of units, and dollar amount for each finalized application: (a) how many applications have been received for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund (NHCF) since 2018; (b) how many NHCF applications have a letter of intent, excluding those with loan agreements or finalized agreements; (c) how many NHCF applications are at the loan agreement stage; (d) how many NHCF applications have had funding agreements finalized; (e) how many NHCF applications have had NHCF funding received by applicants; (f) for NHCF applications that resulted in finalized funding agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their funding agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting NHCF affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting affordability criteria; (g) how many applications have been received for the Rental Construction Financing initiative (RCFi) since 2017; (h) how many RCFi applications are at (i) the approval and letter of intent stage of the application process, (ii) the loan agreement and funding stage, (iii) the servicing stage; (h) how many RCFi applications have had RCFi loans received by applicants; (i) for RCFi applications that resulted in loan agreements, what is the (i) length of time in days between their initial submission and the finalization of their loan agreement, (ii) average and median rent of the project, (iii) percentage of units meeting RCFi affordability criteria, (iv) average and median rent of units meeting affordability criteria?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 41--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: (a) what provinces and territories have reached an agreement with the federal government regarding the Canada Housing Benefit; (b) broken down by number of years on a waitlist for housing, gender, province, year of submission, amount requested and amount paid out, (i) how many applications have been received, (ii) how many applications are currently being assessed, (iii) how many applications have been approved, (iv) how many applications have been declined; and (c) if the Canada housing benefit is transferred as lump sums to the provinces, what are the dollar amount of transfers to the provinces, broken down by amount, year and province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 42--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to immigration, refugee and citizenship processing levels: (a) how many applications have been received since 2016, broken down by year and stream (e.g. outland spousal sponsorship, home childcare provider, open work permit, privately sponsored refugee, etc.); (b) how many applications have been fully approved since 2015, broken down by year and stream; (c) how many applications have been received since (i) March 15, 2020, (ii) September 21, 2020; (d) how many applications have been approved since (i) March 15, 2020, (ii) September 21, 2020; (e) how many applications are in backlog since January 2020, broken down by month and stream; (f) what is the number of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) visa officers and other IRCC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been processing applications since January 1, 2020, broken down by month, immigration office and application stream being processed; (g) since March 15, 2020, how many employees referred to in (f) have been placed on paid leave broken down by month, immigration office and application stream being processed; and (h) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence since January 2020 related to (i) staffing levels, (ii) IRCC office closures, (iii) the operation levels of IRCC mail rooms, (iv) plans to return to increased operation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 43--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to asylum seekers: (a) broken down by year, how many people have been turned away due to the Safe Third Country Agreement since (i) 2016, (ii) January 1, 2020, broken by month, (iii) since July 22, 2020; (b) how many asylum claims have been found ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the Immigration, Refugee and Protection Act since (i) January 1st 2020, broken by month, (ii) July 22, 2020; and (c) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence since January 1, 2020, on the Safe Third Country Agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 44--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to government involvement in the negotiations with Vertex Pharmaceuticals for a Price Listing Agreement with the Pan Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, in relation to cystic fibrosis treatments: (a) what is the current status of the negotiations; (b) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure that Kalydeco and Orkambi are available to all Canadians that require the medication; (c) has the government taken any specific measures to make Trikafta available to Canadians; and (d) how many months, or years, will it be before the government finishes the regulatory and review process related to the approval of Trikafta?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 45--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the government’s position regarding visitors coming to Canada for the sole purpose of giving birth on Canadian soil and subsequently obtaining Canadian citizenship for their child: (a) what is the government’s position in relation to this practice; (b) has the government condemned or taken any action to prevent this practice, and if so, what are the details of any such action; and (c) has the government taken any action to ban or discourage Canadian companies from soliciting or advertising services promoting this type of activity, and if so, what are details?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 47--
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government’s response to Q-268 concerning the government failing to raise Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk status from “Controlled Risk to BSE” to “Negligible Risk to BSE” with the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in the summer of 2019: (a) what is the government’s justification for missing the deadline with the OIE in the summer of 2019; (b) has the government conducted consultations with beef farmers to discuss the damage to the industry caused by missing this deadline, and, if so, what are the details of these consultations; (c) when did the government begin collating data from provincial governments, industry partners and stakeholders in order to ensure that a high-quality submission was produced and submitted in July 2020; (d) what measures were put in place to ensure that the July 2020 deadline, as well as other future deadlines, will not be missed; and (e) on what exact date was the application submitted to the OIE in July 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 49--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive (FTHBI) announced by the government in 2019, between February 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020: (a) how many applicants have applied for mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (b) of those applicants, how many have been approved and have accepted mortgages through the FTHBI, broken down by province and municipality; (c) of those applicants listed in (b), how many approved applicants have been issued the incentive in the form of a shared equity mortgage; (d) what is the total value of incentives (shared equity mortgages) under the FTHBI that have been issued, in dollars; (e) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is that value of each of the mortgage loans; (f) for those applicants who have been issued mortgages through the FTHBI, what is the mean value of the mortgage loan; (g) what is the total aggregate amount of money lent to homebuyers through the FTHBI to date; (h) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the percentage of loans originated with each lender comprising more than 5% of total loans issued; and (i) for mortgages approved through the FTHBI, what is the breakdown of the value of outstanding loans insured by each Canadian mortgage insurance company as a percentage of total loans in force?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 50--
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:
With regard to the air quality and air flow in buildings owned or operated by the government: (a) what specific measures were taken to improve the air flow or circulation in government buildings since March 1, 2020, broken down by individual building; (b) on what date did each measure in (a) come into force; (c) which government buildings have new air filters, HVAC filters, or other equipment designed to clean or improve the air quality or air flow installed since March 1, 2020; (d) for each building in (c), what new equipment was installed and on what date was it installed; and (e) what are the details of all expenditures or contracts related to any of the new measures or equipment, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) date contract was signed, (v) date goods or services were delivered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 51--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
What was the amount of FedDev funding, in dollars, given by year since 2016 to every riding in Ontario, broken down by riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 52--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regards to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent 10 fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected, (ii) approved, (iii) appealed, (iv) rejected upon appeal, (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to case manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 53--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including National First Level Appeals Officer, National Second Level Appeals Officer, case manager, veterans service agent and disability adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different VAC office than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the number of (i) case managers, (ii) veterans service agents; (g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many case managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of a leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent case managers were present and working, and what was the case manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their case manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual case manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a case manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC office, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed case managers and veterans service agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC office, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between case managers when a case manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the case manager to veteran ratio; (p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for case managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a case manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end;
(s) of the individuals in (q), who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v), who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons for which veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v), who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their leaving, broken down by VAC office; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their jobs at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 54--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the 2020 United Nations Security Council election and costs associated with Canada’s bid for a Security Council Seat: (a) what is the final total of all costs associated with the bid; (b) if the final total is not yet known, what is the projected final cost and what is the total of all expenditures made to date in relation to the bid; (c) what is the breakdown of all costs by type of expense (gifts, travel, hospitality, etc.); and (d) what are the details of all contracts over $5,000 in relation to the bid, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) summary of goods or services provided, (v) location goods or services were provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 55--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to any exemptions or essential worker designations granted to ministers, ministerial exempt staff, including any staff in the Office of the Prime Minister, or senior level civil servants so that the individual can be exempt from a mandatory 14-day quarantine after travelling to the Atlantic bubble, since the quarantine orders were put into place: (a) how many such individuals received an exemption; (b) what are the names and titles of the individuals who received exemptions; (c) for each case, what was the reason or rationale why the individual was granted an exemption; and (d) what are the details of all instances where a minister or ministerial exempt staff member travelled from outside of the Atlantic provinces to one or more of the Atlantic provinces since the 14-day quarantine for travellers was instituted, including the (i) name and title of the traveller, (ii) date of departure, (iii) date of arrival, (iv) location of departure, (v) location of arrival, (vi) mode of transportation, (vii) locations visited on the trip, (viii) whether or not the minister or staff member received an exemption from the 14-day quarantine, (ix) whether or not the minister of staff member adhered to the 14-day quarantine, (x) purpose of the trip?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 56--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to expenditures on moving and relocation expenses for ministerial exempt staff since January 1, 2018, broken down by ministerial office: (a) what is the total amount spent on moving and relocation expenses for (i) incoming ministerial staff, (ii) departing or transferring ministerial staff; (b) how many exempt staff members or former exempt staff members’ expenses does the total in (a) cover; and (c) how many exempt staff members or former exempt staff members had more than $10,000 in moving and relocation expenses covered by the government, and what was the total for each individual?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 57--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to national interest exemptions issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in relation to the mandatory quarantine required for individuals entering Canada during the pandemic: (a) how many individuals received national interest exemptions; and (b) what are the details of each exemption, including (i) the name of the individual granted exemption, (ii) which minister granted the exemption, (iii) the date the exemption was granted, (iv) the explanation regarding how the exemption was in Canada’s national interest, (v) the country the individual travelled to Canada from?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 58--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to electric vehicle charging stations funded or subsidized by the government: (a) how many chargers have been funded or subsidized since January 1, 2016; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province and municipality; (c) what was the total government expenditure on each charging station, broken down by location; (d) on what date was each station installed; (e) which charging stations are currently open to the public; and (f) what is the current cost of electricity for users of the public charging stations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 59--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC), since its establishment: (a) how many complaints and requests for review were filed by individuals identifying as First Nations, Metis, or Inuit, broken down by percentage and number; (b) how many of the complaints and requests for review in (a) were dismissed without being investigated; (c) how many complaints and requests for review were filed for incidents occurring on-reserve or in predominantly First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities, broken down by percentage and number; (d) how many of those complaints and requests for review in (c) were dismissed without being investigated; and (e) for requests for review in which the CRCC is not satisfied with the RCMP’s report, how many interim reports have been provided to complainants for response and input on recommended actions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 60--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to active transportation in Canada: what federal actions and funding has been taken with or provided to provinces and municipalities, broken down by year since 2010, that (i) validates the use of roads by cyclists and articulates the safety-related responsibilities of cyclists and other vehicles in on-road situation, (ii) grants authority to various agencies to test and implement unique solutions to operational problems involving active transportation users, (iii) improves road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, (iv) makes the purchase of bicycles and cycling equipment more affordable by reducing sales tax on their purchase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 62--
Mr. Michael Cooper:
With regard to management consulting contracts signed by any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity during the pandemic, since March 1, 2020: (a) what is the total value of all such contracts; and (b) what are the details of each contract, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date the contract was signed, (iv) start and end date of consulting services, (v) description of the issue, advice, or goal that the consulting contract was intended to address or achieve, (vi) file number, (vii) Treasury Board object code used to classify the contract (e.g. 0491)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 66--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the information collected by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regarding electronic funds transfers of $10,000 and over and the statement by the Minister of National Revenue before the Standing Committee on Finance on May 19, 2016, indicating that using this information, the CRA will target up to four jurisdictions per year, without warning, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17: (a) how many foreign jurisdictions were targeted; (b) what is the name of each foreign jurisdiction targeted; (c) how many audits were conducted by the CRA for each foreign jurisdiction targeted; (d) of the audits in (c), how many resulted in a notice of assessment; (e) of the audits in (c), how many were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (f) of the investigations in (e), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (g) how many prosecutions in (f) resulted in convictions; (h) what were the penalties imposed for each conviction in (g); and (i) what is the total amount recovered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 67--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) activities under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule under section 245 of the Income Tax Act, and under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, broken down by section of the act: (a) how many audits have been completed, since the fiscal year 2011-12, broken down by fiscal year and by (i) individual, (ii) trust, (iii) corporation; (b) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA since the fiscal year 2011-12, broken down by fiscal year and by (i) individual, (ii) trust, (iii) corporation; (c) what is the total amount recovered by the CRA to date; (d) how many legal proceedings are currently underway, broken down by (i) Tax Court of Canada, (ii) Federal Court of Appeal, (iii) Supreme Court of Canada; (e) how many times has the CRA lost in court, broken down by (i) name of taxpayer, (ii) Tax Court of Canada, (iii) Federal Court of Appeal, (iv) Supreme Court of Canada; (f) what was the total amount spent by the CRA, broken down by lawsuit; and (g) how many times has the CRA not exercised its right of appeal, broken down by lawsuit, and what is the justification for each case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 68--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) interdepartmental committee that reviews files and makes recommendations on the application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), broken down by fiscal year since 2010-11: (a) how many of the proposed GAAR assessments sent to the CRA’s headquarters for review were referred to the interdepartmental committee; and (b) of the assessments reviewed in (a) by the interdepartmental committee, for how many assessments did the interdepartmental committee (i) recommend the application of the GAAR, (ii) not recommend the application of the GAAR?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 69--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, since March 22, 2016: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects that have undergone a Climate Lens assessment, broken down by stream; and (b) for each project in (a), what are the details, including (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of the project, (iii) a brief description of the project, (iv) whether the project included a Climate Change Resilience Assessment, (v) whether the project included a Climate Change Green House Gas Mitigation Assessment, (vi) if a project included a Climate Change Resilience Assessment, a summary of the risk management findings of the assessment, (vii) if a project included a Climate Change Green House Gas Mitigation Assessment, the increase or reduction in emissions calculated in the assessment?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 70--
Mr. Gord Johns:
With regard to the motion respecting the business of supply on service standards for Canada's veterans adopted by the House on November 6, 2018: (a) what was the amount and percentage of all lapsed spending in the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC), broken down by year from 2013-14 to the current fiscal year; (b) what steps has the government taken since then to automatically carry forward all unused annual expenditures of the VAC to the next fiscal year; and (c) is the carry forward in (b) for the sole purpose of improving services to Canada's veterans until the department meets or exceeds the 24 service standards it has set?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 71--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With respect to the tax fairness motion that the House adopted on March 8, 2017: what steps has the government taken since then to (i) cap the stock option loophole, (ii) tighten the rules for shell corporations, (iii) renegotiate tax treaties that allow corporations to repatriate profits from tax havens back to Canada without paying tax, (iv) end forgiveness agreements without penalty for individuals suspected of tax evasion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 72--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to government assistance programs for individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what has been the total amount of money expended through the (i) Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), (ii) Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), (iii) Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB), (iv) Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG); (b) what is the cumulative weekly breakdown of (a), starting on March 13, 2020, and further broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) gender, (iii) age group; (c) what has been the cumulative number of applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CERB, (ii) CEWS, (iii) CESB, (iv) CSSG; and (d) what has been the cumulative number of accepted applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CERB, (ii) CEWS, (iii) CESB, (iv) CSSG?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 73--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to government assistance programs for organizations and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what has been the total amount of money expended through the (i) Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA), (ii) Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), (iii) Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA), (iv) Regional Relief and Recovery Fund (RRRF), (v) Industrial Research Assistance (IRAP) programs; (b) what is the cumulative weekly breakdown of (a), starting on March 13, 2020; (c) what has been the cumulative number of applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CECRA, (ii) LEEFF, (iii) CEBA, (iv) RRRF, (v) IRAP; and (d) what has been the cumulative number of accepted applications, broken down by week, since March 13, 2020, for the (i) CECRA, (ii) LEEFF, (iii) CEBA, (iv) RRRF, (v) IRAP?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 74--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to federal transfers to provinces and territories since March 1, 2020, excluding the Canada Health Transfer, Canada Social Transfer, Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing: (a) how much funding has been allocated to provincial and territorial transfers, broken down by province or territory; (b) how much has actually been transferred to each province and territory since March 1, 2020, broken down by transfer payment and by stated purpose; and (c) for each transfer payment identified in (b), what mechanisms exist for the federal government to ensure that the recipient allocates funding towards its stated purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 75--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to construction, infrastructure, or renovation projects on properties or land owned, operated or used by Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) how many projects have a projected completion date which has been delayed or pushed back since March 1, 2020; and (b) what are the details of each delayed project, including the (i) location, including street address, if applicable, (ii) project description, (iii) start date, (iv) original projected completion date, (v) revised projected completion date, (vi) reason for the delay, (vii) original budget, (viii) revised budget, if the delay resulted in a change?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 76--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the ongoing construction work on what used to be the lawn in front of Centre Block: (a) what specific work was completed between July 1, 2020, and September 28, 2020; and (b) what is the projected schedule of work to be completed in each month between October 2020 and October 2021, broken down by month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 77--
Mr. Gary Vidal:
With regard to infrastructure projects approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015, in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River: what are the details of all such projects, including the (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including the name of the municipality or of the local government, (vii) status of the project, (viii) start sate, (ix) completion date or expected completion date, broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 79--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to ministers and exempt staff members flying on government aircraft, including helicopters, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) type of aircraft, (v) which ministers and exempt staff members were on board?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 80--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to the Connect to Innovate program of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada as well as all CRTC programs that fund broadband Internet: how much was spent in Ontario and Quebec since 2016, broken down by riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 81--
Mr. Joël Godin:
With regard to the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) by the government from firms based in the province of Quebec: (a) what are the details of all contracts awarded to Quebec-based firms to provide PPE, including the (i) vendor, (ii) location, (iii) description of goods, including the volume, (iv) amount, (v) date the contract was signed, (vi) delivery date for goods, (vii) whether the contract was sole-sourced; and (b) what are the details of all applications or proposals received by the government from companies based in Quebec to provide PPE, but that were not accepted or entered into by the government, including the (i) vendor, (ii) summary of the proposal, (iii) reason why the proposal was not accepted?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 82--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government’s Canada’s Connectivity Strategy published in 2019: (a) how many Canadians gained access to broadband speeds of at least 50 megabits per second (Mbps) for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads under the strategy; (b) what is the detailed breakdown of (a), including the number of Canadians who have gained access, broken down by geographic region, municipality and date; and (c) for each instance in (b), did any federal program provide the funding, and if so, which program, and how much federal funding was provided?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 83--
Mr. Mario Beaulieu:
With regard to permanent residents who went through the Canadian citizenship process and citizenship ceremonies held between 2009 and 2019, broken down by province: (a) how many permanent residents demonstrated their language proficiency in (i) French, (ii) English; (b) how many permanent residents demonstrated an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship in (i) French, (ii) English; and (c) how many citizenship ceremonies took place in (i) French, (ii) English?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 84--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) pension recipients who receive Regular Force Pension Plan: (a) how many current pension recipients married after the age of 60; (b) of the recipients in (a), how many had the option to apply for an Optional Survivor Benefit (OSB) for their spouse in exchange for a lower pension level; (c) how many recipients actually applied for an OSB for their spouse; (d) what is the current number of CAF pension recipients who are currently receiving a lower pension as a result of marrying after the age of 60 and applying for an OSB; and (e) what is the rationale for not providing full spousal benefits, without a reduced pension level, to CAF members who marry after the age of 60 as opposed to prior to the age of 60?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 86--
Mr. Dane Lloyd:
With regard to access to remote government networks for government employees working from home during the pandemic, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) how many employees have been advised that they have (i) full unlimited network access throughout the workday, (ii) limited network access, such as off-peak hours only or instructions to download files in the evening, (iii) no network access; (b) what was the remote network capacity in terms of the number of users that may be connected at any one time as of (i) March 1, 2020, (ii) July 1, 2020; and (c) what is the current remote network capacity in terms of the number of users that may be connected at any one time?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 89--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the operation of Canadian visa offices located outside of Canada during the pandemic, since March 13, 2020: (a) which offices (i) have remained fully operational and open, (ii) have temporarily closed but have since reopened, (iii) remain closed; (b) of the offices which have since reopened, on what date (i) did they close, (ii) did they reopen; (c) for each of the offices that remain closed, what is the scheduled or projected reopening date; and (d) which offices have reduced the services available since March 13, 2020, and what specific services have been reduced or are no-longer offered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 90--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to testing for SARS-CoV-2: (a) for each month since March, 2020, (i) what SARS-CoV-2 testing devices were approved, including the name, manufacturer, device type, whether the testing device is intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, and the date authorized, (ii) what was the length in days between the submission for authorization and the final authorization for each device; (b) for each month since March, how many Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 have been (i) procured, (ii) deployed across Canada; (c) for what testing devices has the Minister of Health issued an authorization for importation and sale under the authority of the interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19; (d) for each testing device so authorized, which ones, as outlined in section 4(3) of the interim order, provided the minister with information demonstrating that the sale of the COVID-19 medical device was authorized by a foreign regulatory authority; and (e) of the antigen point-of-care testing devices currently being reviewed by Health Canada, which are intended for direct purchase or use by a consumer at home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 91--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the government’s commitment to end all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021: (a) does the government still commit to ending all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021, and if not, what is the new target date; (b) which communities are currently subject to a long-term drinking water advisory; (c) of the communities in (b), which ones are expected to still have a drinking water advisory as of March 1, 2021; (d) for each community in (b), when are they expected to have safe drinking water; and (e) for each community in (b), what are the specific reasons why the construction or other measures to restore safe drinking water to the community have been delayed or not completed to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 92--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to Nutrition North Canada: (a) what specific criteria or formula is used to determine the level of subsidy rates provided to each community; (b) what is the specific criteria for determining when the (i) high, (ii) medium, (iii) low subsidy levels apply; (c) what were the subsidy rates, broken down by each eligible community, as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) September 29, 2020; and (d) for each instance where a community’s subsidy rate was changed between January 1, 2016, and September 29, 2020, what was the rationale and formula used to determine the revised rate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 93--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the impact of the pandemic on processing times for temporary residence applications: (a) what was the average processing time for temporary residence applications on September 1, 2019, broken down by type of application and by country the applicant is applying from; and (b) what is the current average processing time for temporary residence applications, broken down by type of application and by country the application is made from?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 94--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the backlog of family sponsorship applications and processing times: (a) what is the current backlog of family sponsorship applications, broken down by type of relative (spouse, dependent child, parent, etc.) and country; (b) what was the backlog of family sponsorship applications, broken down by type of relative, as of September 1, 2019; (c) what is the current estimated processing time for family sponsorship applications, broken down by type of relative, and by country, if available; (d) how many family sponsorship applications have been received for relatives living in the United States since April 1, 2020; and (e) to date, what is the status of the applications in (d), including how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied, (iii) still awaiting a decision?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 95--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to government expenditures on hotels and other accommodations used to provide or enforce any orders under the Quarantine Act, since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) name of hotel or facility, (iii) amount, (iv) location, (v) number or rooms rented, (vi) start and end date of rental, (vii) description of the type of individuals using the facility (returning air travelers, high risk government employees, etc.), (viii) start and end date of the contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 96--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the firearms regulations and prohibitions published in the Canada Gazette on May 1, 2020: (a) did the government conduct any formal analysis on the impact of the prohibitions; and (b) what are the details of any analysis conducted, including (i) who conducted the analysis, (ii) findings, (iii) date findings were provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 97--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to flights on government aircraft for personal and non-governmental business by the Prime Minister and his family, and by ministers and their families, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such flights, including the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) names of passengers, excluding security detail; and (b) for each flight, what was the total amount reimbursed to the government by each passenger?
Response
(Return tabled)
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development8555-432-1 CC-150 Polaris8555-432-10 Government programs and services8555-432-11 Recruitment and hiring at Gl ...8555-432-12 Small and medium-sized businesses8555-432-13 Government contracts for ser ...8555-432-14 Government contracts for arc ...8555-432-18 Public service employees8555-432-20 Non-restricted and restricte ...8555-432-21 Defaulted student loans8555-432-22 Canada Emergency Response Benefit ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 425--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to government purchases of personal protective equipment (PPE): (a) how many units of PPE did the government have in Canada by November 30, 2019, broken down by type of equipment, and how much PPE was purchased in this month; (b) how many units of PPE did the government have in Canada by December 31, 2019, broken down by type of equipment, and how much PPE was purchased in this month; (c) how many units of PPE did the government have in Canada by January 31, 2020, broken down by type of equipment, and how much PPE was purchased in this month; (d) how many units of PPE did the government have in Canada by February 29, 2020, broken down by type of equipment, and how much PPE was purchased in this month; and (e) how many units of PPE did the government have in Canada by March 31, 2020, broken down by type of equipment, and how much PPE was purchased in this month?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 426--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to additional funding for agencies tasked with Canadian border management, broken down by source of funds and fiscal mechanism (i.e. business of supply, emergency payment from fiscal framework, new legislation): (a) how much went to each border management agency throughout December 2019, broken down by (i) source of funds, (ii) amount of funds, (iii) purpose of funds; (b) how much went to each border management agency throughout January 2020, broken down by (i) source of funds, (ii) amount of funds, (iii) purpose of funds; (c) how much went to each border management agency throughout February 2020, broken down by (i) source of funds, (ii) amount of funds, (iii) purpose of funds; and (d) how much went to each border management agency throughout March 2020, broken down by (i) source of funds, (ii) amount of funds, (iii) purpose of funds?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 427--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the Canada Emergency Care Benefit: (a) how many people have received payments from both Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency; (b) of those cases in (a), how much was paid out in double payments; and (c) how much will need to be recovered due to double payments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 428--
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to meetings or briefings at the deputy minister, minister, and cabinet level for Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Global Affairs Canada, the Privy Council Office, Public Safety Canada, and all agencies therein, between November 30, 2019, and March 31, 2020: what were the details of all meetings held referencing the Hubei province in China, the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, pandemics, and emergency preparedness measures, including (i) the department holding the meeting, (ii) the date of meeting, (iii) officials in attendance, (iv) the topic of the meeting or agenda?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 429--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to inmates released early from federal correctional institutions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what is the total number of inmates who were released early; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) institution, (ii) length of sentence; and (c) how many of the inmates released early were serving sentences related to (i) murder or manslaughter, (ii) sex offences, (iii) other violent crimes?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 430--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to COVID-19: (a) what is the first date on which Canadian Armed Forces MEDINT or CFINTCOM became aware of a new novel coronavirus in China; (b) what is the first date on which the Minister of National Defence was briefed or received a briefing note regarding a new novel coronavirus in China; and (c) what is the first date on which the Minister of National Defence shared information concerning a new novel coronavirus in China with the Prime Minister’s Office and/or the Privy Council Office?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 431--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to personal protective equipment: (a) how many C4 protective masks and canisters have been issued to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel since January 1, 2020; (b) how many C4 protective masks and canisters are in stockpile; and (c) what are the types and quantities of all personal protective equipment for infectious diseases available for CAF/Department of National Defence personnel and in stockpile?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 432--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light, Mobile Tactical Vehicle Engineer, Mobile Tactical Vehicle Recovery, and Mobile Tactical Vehicle Fitter: (a) how many of these mobile tactical vehicles have been identified as surplus; (b) how many mobile tactical vehicles have been or are in the process of being decommissioned; (c) how many of these mobile tactical vehicles have been given to museums or sold to private owners; (d) how many of these mobile tactical vehicles remain in service; and (e) by which date does the Canadian Armed Forces/Department of National Defence plan to have the entire fleet of these mobile tactical vehicles removed from service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 433--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Role 2 and Role 3 hospitals and air transportation: (a) how many Role 2 and Role 3 hospitals are currently available in Canada; (b) how many Role 2 and Role 3 hospitals are planned for the next six months; and (c) how many aircraft capable of transporting people with infectious disease does the Canadian Armed Forces/Department of National Defence intend to acquire and by which date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 434--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With respect to the Bank of Canada’s participation in Canada’s economic response to the coronavirus pandemic, between March 1, 2020, and the tabling of the reply to this question: (a) what is the dollar value of securities purchased under the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program; (b) what is the dollar value of securities purchased under the Canada Mortgage Bond Purchase Program; (c) what is the dollar value of purchases under the Banker’s Acceptance Purchase Facility; (d) what is the dollar value of assets purchased under the Provincial Money Market Purchase Program, by province and in aggregate, respectively; (e) what is the dollar value of purchases under the Provincial Bond Purchase Program; (f) what is the dollar value of purchases under the Corporate Bond Purchase Program; (g) what is the dollar value of purchases under the Commercial Paper Purchase Program; (h) what is the dollar value of purchases under the Contingent Term Repo Facility; (i) what is the projected dollar value for total purchases during the life of each program in (a) to (h); (j) what is the dollar value of new currency created to date to fund the measures taken in (a) to (h); (k) what is the projected dollar value of new currency to be created to fund the measures taken in (a) to (h) during the life of each program; (l) what, if any, effects on inflation by the creation of currency in (j) does the Bank of Canada project for (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022; and (m) what, if any, adjustments to the Bank of Canada’s prime rate does it anticipate needing to counteract any inflation projected in (l)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 435--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With respect to the Bank of Canada’s participation in Canada’s economic response to the coronavirus pandemic: (a) when does the Bank of Canada project divesting itself of assets purchased under each of the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program, the Canada Mortgage Bond Purchase Program, the Banker’s Acceptance Purchase Facility, the Provincial Money Market Purchase Program, the Commercial Paper Purchase Program, and the Contingent Term Repo Facility; and (b) what gain or loss does the Bank of Canada project realizing upon the sale of assets purchased under each of the programs in (a) respectively?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 436--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With respect to the doubling of the carbon tax on April 1, 2020: (a) by how much will the increased tax raise the cost of producing oil and natural gas respectively nationwide; (b) by how much will the increased tax raise the cost of producing oil and natural gas respectively for each energy producing province; (c) by how much have national revenues declined due to the drop in the price of crude oil since January 1, 2020; (d) in order for national revenues to recover to levels immediately pre-dating the drop in the price of oil in (c), and given the increased cost of production in (a), what does the price of crude oil need to be; (e) what effect does the increase in cost of production in (a) have on the ability of Canadian energy producers to compete with foreign producers at current world prices for crude oil; and (f) how many Canadian energy producers does the government forecast will be unable to compete with foreign energy producers at the prevailing price of crude oil due to the increased cost of production in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 437--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to government grants, contributions and contracts since January  1, 2016, what are the details of all grants, contributions or contracts given to World Wildlife Fund Canada or its international affiliates, broken down by: (a) date issued; (b) description of services provided; (c) authorizer; (d) timeframe for services; (e) original contribution value; (f) final contribution value (if different); (g) location services will be provided; and (h) reference and file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 438--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the budget measure contained in Bill C-44 (42nd Parliament, budget 2017) exempting fees under the Food and Drugs Act from the new rules contained in the Service Fees Act: (a) how many times has the Minister of Health given a ministerial order to increase fees; and (b) what are the details of each increase, broken down by date of ministerial order, including (i) amount of the increase for each drug, device, food or cosmetic, by percentage and absolute dollar value, (ii) amount of the fee, (iii) manner or criteria used for determining the amount, (iv) circumstances in which the fee will be payable, (v)rationale for the fee, (vi) specific factors taken into account in determining the amount of the fee, (vii) performance standard that will apply in respect of the fee?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 439--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to temporary resident permits specific to victims of human trafficking, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many applications have been received; (b) how many temporary resident permits have been issued; (c) how many temporary resident permits were denied; (d) in (a) to (c), what is the breakdown by (i) year, (ii) month, (iii) gender, (iv) source country; (e) for permits in (b), what is the breakdown based on ministerial instructions 1(1), 1(2) and 2; and (f) what is the average wait time for an individual who applies for a temporary resident permits specific to victims of human trafficking?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 440--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to federal funding to combat human trafficking since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total amount, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount; (b) what process was used to determine which department or agency would receive this funding; (c) what criteria or process was used to determine how much funding was allocated to each department or agency; and (d) what is the itemized list of funding programs to combat human trafficking, including (i) title of program, (ii) recipient organization or name, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) amount, (vi) description of goods or services provided, including quantity, if applicable, (vi) file number?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 441--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the additional $75 million National Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking announced on September 4, 2019: (a) what departments and agencies are receiving this new funding, broken down by initiative and organization; (b) what are the details of all funding provided to date, including the (i) name, (ii) project description, (iii) amount, (iv) date of the announcement, (v) duration of the project or program funded by the announcement; (c) what process was used to determine which department or agency would receive this funding; (d) what criteria or process was used to determine how much funding was allocated to each department or agency; and (e) what projects are slated to receive federal funding in the 2020-21 fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 442--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the functioning of the public service and government officials since March 16, 2020: (a) how many employees or full time equivalents (FTEs) have been (i) hired, (ii) reassigned in relation to the COVID-19 response; (b) how many FTEs have been (i) working from a government building, (ii) telecommuting or working from home during the pandemic; and (c) how many FTEs have been (i) laid off or terminated, (ii) placed on leave, broken down by type of leave?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 443--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to construction and renovations at the Prime Minister’s country residence and surrounding property at Harrington Lake: (a) what are the details of each new building or other structure constructed, or in the process of being constructed, at the property since November 4, 2015, including (i) date construction began, (ii) projected or actual completion date, (iii) square footage, (iv) physical description of the structure, (v) purpose of the structure, (vi) estimated cost; and (b) what are the details of all renovations which began at the property since November 4, 2015, including (i) start date, (ii) projected or actual completion date, (iii) structure, (iv) project description, (v) estimated cost?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 444--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to evaluating the stock status of all of Canada’s fisheries resources since 2000: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) used indicators to evaluate the various stocks and, if so, what is the breakdown of indicators by (i) species, (ii) province, (iii) area, (iv) sub-area, (v) year; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, what does the DFO use as a basis for (i) evaluating stocks, (ii) making decisions on fisheries management; (c) has the DFO assessed the quality of its estimates for all of the various stocks and, if so, what is the breakdown of this qualitative assessment by (i) species, (ii) province, (iii) area, (iv) sub-area, (v) year; (d) if the answer to (c) is negative, (i) are there plans to carry out this assessment, (ii) why is this type of assessment not conducted; (e) has the DFO put together an action plan to increase the number of indicators used for evaluating various stocks and, if so, what are the names, measures taken or considered, and conclusions, broken down by (i) species, (ii) province, (iii) area, (iv) sub-area, (v) year; (f) if the answer to (e) is negative, (i) is this type of action plan being considered, (ii) why is there no action plan on this issue; (g) has the DFO expended funds to increase the number of indicators for evaluating the various stocks and, if so, what is the spending breakdown by (i) species, (ii) province, (iii) area, (iv) sub-area, (v) year; (h) if the answer to (g) is negative, (i) are there plans for this type of expenditure, (ii) why is there a lack of spending on this issue; (i) has the DFO begun to “rapidly develop or update the biological knowledge essential for the sustainable management” of lobsters in areas 15, 16, 17 and 18, as recommended in Science Advisory Report 2019/059, and, if so, what is the breakdown of measures taken by (i) area, (ii) sub-area, (iii) year; (j) if the answer to (i) is negative, (i) are there plans to do so, (ii) why have no measures been taken; (k) can the DFO explain why the confidence limit has increased to 95% in the past 10 years regarding the evaluation of the estimated biomass of stock in NAFO 4T and, if so, what is the explanation; and (l) if the answer to (k) is negative, why is the DFO unable to explain this increase?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 445--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to the peer review process coordinated by the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) exactly how is the peer review process carried out; (b) is participation in science advisory meetings by invitation only and, if so, (i) why is this the case, (ii) how are peers selected, (iii) who is responsible for peer selection or, if not, what is the procedure for participating in meetings; (c) in advance of a science advisory meeting, do all peers receive (i) the preliminary study and, if so, how long do they have to review it or, if not, what are the reasons for this decision, (ii) the data for this study and, if so, how long do they have to review it or, if not, what are the reasons behind this decision; (d) is it possible for an individual or a group to express their views (i) without having been invited and, if so, what is the procedure to follow or, if not, what are the reasons for this decision, (ii) without attending the science advisory meetings despite having been invited and, if so, what is the procedure to follow or, if not, what are the reasons for this decision, (iii) without attending the science advisory meetings and without having been invited and, if so, what is the procedure to follow or, if not, what are the reasons for this decision; (e) is it possible to attend meetings as an observer and, if so, (i) what is the procedure to follow, (ii) is an invitation required or, if not, what are the reasons for this decision; (f) for each of the DFO peer review processes coordinated by the CSAS, what is the breakdown for each meeting since 2010 by number of representatives affiliated with (i) DFO, (ii) the federal government excluding DFO, (iii) the Government of Quebec, (iv) the Government of British Columbia, (v) the Government of Alberta, (vi) the Government of Prince Edward Island, (vii) the Government of Manitoba, (viii) the Government of New Brunswick, (ix) the Government of Nova Scotia, (x) the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, (xi) the Government of Ontario, (xii) the Government of Saskatchewan, (xiii) the Government of Nunavut, (xiv) the Government of Yukon, (xv) the Government of Northwest Territories, (xvi) band councils, (xvii) a Quebec university, (xviii) a Canadian university, (xix) an American university, (xx) the non-Indigenous fishing industry, (xxi) the Indigenous fishing industry, (xxii) an Indigenous group not affiliated with the fishing industry, (xxiii) an environmental group, (xxiv) a wildlife protection group, (xxv) another group; (g) how is consensus defined in the DFO peer review processes coordinated by the CSAS; (h) are stakeholders selected in order to encourage a lack of opposition to the conclusions put forward by the DFO; (i) do the procedures for the peer review process encourage a lack of opposition to the conclusions put forward by the DFO; and (j) does the methodology for the peer review process encourage a lack of opposition to the conclusions put forward by the DFO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 446--
Mrs. Marilène Gill:
With regard to recreational fishing managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) since 2000: (a) what is the total amount of revenue generated by the DFO from the sale of recreational licences, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) species; (b) what is the total amount of spending by the DFO to support recreational fishing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) species; (c) what measures are being taken to ensure compliance with recreational fishing regulations, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) species; (d) what is the average number of fishery officers dedicated specifically to overseeing recreational fishing, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) species; (e) what technological tools are used to ensure compliance with recreational fishing regulations, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) species; (f) what is the number of tickets issued by the DFO using technological tools, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) technological tool; (g) what is the total amount of all tickets issued by the DFO using technological tools, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) technological tool; and (h) what is the total amount of all recreational fishing tickets issued by the DFO, broken down by (i) year, (ii) federal entity, (iii) fishing area, (iv) sub-area, (v) species?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 447--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to deputy ministers’ committees of the Privy Council Office, for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, broken down by individual committee: (a) what are the names and qualifications of each member; (b) what is the renumeration provided to members for service on committees, broken down by member; and (c) what are the expenses claimed by members while performing committee business, broken down by member?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 448--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to regional development agencies (RDAs) and the April 17, 2020, announcement of “$675 million to give financing support to small and medium-sized businesses that are unable to access the government’s existing COVID-19 support measures, through Canada’s Regional Development Agencies”: (a) how much of the $675 million will each of the six RDAs be allocated; (b) for each RDA, how will the funds be made available to businesses, broken down by program; (c) for each answer in (b), what are the details for each program, broken down by (i) funding type, (ii) criteria for qualification, (iii) maximum allowable funding per applicant, (iv) application deadlines, (v) number of applicants received, (vi) number of approved applicants; and (d) for each applicant in (c), what are the details of the applicant, broken down by (i) name, (ii) location, (iii) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, (iv) amount applied for, (v) amount approved, (vi) project status, (vii) federal electoral district?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 449--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to business support measures in response to COVID-19 and audits by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, since March 11, 2020: (a) how many audits has the CRA conducted to ensure that businesses do not practise tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, broken down by the number of businesses; and (b) of the businesses that have been audited by the CRA in (a), how many have benefited from support measures and how many have been denied support measures because of tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 450--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to combat tax evasion and abusive tax planning since March 1, 2016: (a) how many businesses have been identified by the CRA’s computer systems, broken down by (i) businesses linked to tax evasion, (ii) businesses linked to fraud or fraud indicators, (iii) businesses linked to abusive tax planning; (b) of the businesses identified in (a), how many applied for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS); and (c) of the applications for the CEWS in (b), how many were approved, and how many were denied because of tax evasion and abusive tax planning practices?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 451--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to the government’s response to the arbitrary arrests of Martin Lee and other pro-democracy leaders in Hong Kong: (a) has the Canadian government objected to these arrests and, if so, what specific action has been taken to voice the objection; (b) what specific assurances, if any, has the government received that Canadian citizens in Hong Kong not be subject to arrest or harm in relation to the pro-democracy movement; and (c) how is Canada monitoring and ensuring that Hong Kong’s Basic Law is being upheld, including the rights, protections, and privileges it grants to democratic advocacy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 452--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to vehicles purchased by the government for the 2018 G7 summit: (a) how many vehicles were purchased; (b) at the time of purchase, what was the market value of each individual vehicle purchased; (c) how many of the vehicles in (a) were put up for sale by the government; (d) of the vehicles in (c), how many were sold; (e) what was the individual selling price for each vehicle sold; and (f) of the vehicles in (c), how many (i) remain, (ii) are still for sale, including the individual selling price, (iii) are being used by the government, (iv) are in storage?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 453--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the changes to the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) design and associated increase to the cost per ship and delay of the construction start time: (a) how many ships are specifically contracted for in the first phase of the contract with Irving Shipbuilding; (b) what is the most recent cost estimate for the first three ships as provided to the Assistant Deputy Minister (Material) and the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN); (c) what are the specific design changes being considered that are expected to increase the size, capacity, speed, and weight of the Type T26 frigate from the original United Kingdom design; (d) who proposed each change and who approved the change(s) as being essential to the operations for the RCN; (e) what is the rationale given for each design change contemplated in terms of the risks to schedule and budget; (f) what, if any, are the specific concerns or issues related to costs, speed, size, weight and crewing of the T26 frigate design that have been identified by the Department of National Defence, third party advisors and any technical experts; (g) what are the current state of operations and technical requirements for the CSC; (h) what is the schedule for each (i) design change, (ii) contract approval, (iii) independent report from third party advisors, including the schedule for draft reports; (i) what is the cost for spares for each of the CSC; and (j) what is the cost of infrastructure upgrades for the CSC fleet?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 454--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Arctic Off-Shore Patrol Ships (AOPS): (a) what are the operational requirements established by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) for the two additional ships; (b) will the two AOPS for the CCG require redesign or changes, and, if so, what will be the specific changes; (c) what will be the specific cost for the changes; (d) when and in what reports did the CCG first identify the need for AOPS; (e) has the CCG identified any risks or challenges in operating the two AOPS, and, if so, what are those risks; and (f) what will be the total estimated costs of the two AOPS to CCG?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 455--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN): (a) which surface platform in the RCN is deemed a warship and why has it obtained such a designation; (b) will the Joint Support Ship be a warship; (c) which specific characteristics will enable to Joint Support Ship to be a warship; (d) what are the RCN's definitions of interim operational capability (IOC) and full operational capability (FOC); (e) when will the first Joint Support Ship (JSS 1) achieve IOC and FOC; (f) when will the second Joint Support Ship (JSS 2) achieve FOC; and (g) what is the most recent cost projection identified to Assistant Deputy Minister (Material) for (i) JSS 1, (ii) JSS 2?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 456--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to Canada's submarine fleet: (a) what was the total number of days at sea for each submarine in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019; (b) what was the total spent to repair each submarine in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019; (c) what is the estimated total cost of the current submarine maintenance plan to the submarines in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021; and (d) what are the projected future costs of maintenance of the submarine fleet until end of life?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 457--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the replacement of Canada's polar class icebreakers: (a) what is the (i) expected date of their replacement, (ii) roles for these new vessels, (iii) budget or cost for their replacement; and (b) what are the details relating to operating older icebreakers (such as the Louis S. St-Laurent and Terry Fox), including (i) expected years they will have to continue to operate before replacements are built, (ii) total sea days for each vessel in 2017, 2018, and 2019, (iii) total cost of maintenance in 2017, 2018, 2019 for each polar class vessel, (iv) planned maintenance cost of the vessels for each of the next five years, (v) total crews required to operate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 458--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the government's plans to build 16 multipurpose vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) what are the technical operational requirements for each vessel; (b) for each contract awarded in relation to the vessels, what is the (i) expected budget, (ii) schedule, (iii) vendor, (iv) work description; and (c) for each vessel, what is the (i) total number of crew expected, (ii) expected delivery date, (iii) risks to cost or budget identified in the planning for these ships?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 459--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the government's profit policy relating to shipbuilding: (a) what risks has government evaluated related to guaranteed contracts for the (i) Arctic Off­Shore Patrol Ships (AOPS), (ii) Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC), (iii) Halifax class frigates, and what were the results of each evaluation; (b) what is the profit range offered to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. for its work on the (i) AOPS, (ii) CSC, (iii) Halifax class frigates; (c) what is the total profit offered for guaranteed work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, broken down by each "cost plus" contract; and (d) what are the details of any third party review of Canada's profit policy related to the (i) AOPS, (ii) CSC?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 460--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s investigations into overseas tax evasion and the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers scandals: (a) how many of the companies currently under investigation have requested government assistance under the COVID-19 emergency measures; and (b) of the requests for assistance from the companies in (a), how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 461--
Mr. Peter Julian:
With regard to the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to fight tax evasion: (a) how many corporate groups, with one or more subsidiaries in one of the top 10 jurisdictions of the Financial Secrecy Index or the Corporate Tax Haven Index, has the CRA identified; (b) how many corporate groups that were implicated in financial or tax scandals or that received what would be considered illegal state aid has the CRA identified; (c) how many corporate groups have filled out a full report for each country, in keeping with the standard outlined by the Global Reporting Initiative; (d) how many corporate groups in (a), (b) and (c) have received or applied for federal government assistance; and (e) for the cases in (d), how many applications have been rejected by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 462--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to tax year 2020: (a) what are the projections for tax revenue to be assessed on taxable benefits paid to Canadians under each emergency measure proposed; (b) what are the low-end projections for each emergency measure, broken down by measure; (c) what are the high-end projections for each emergency measure, broken down by measure; and (d) what are the estimates or scenario-planning numbers of people applying for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit that fall within each tax bracket in Canada, broken down by each 2019 federal income tax bracket?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 463--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to departmental defences against Canadian International Trade Tribunal rulings: how much has been spent on legal fees, broken down by (i) department, (ii) expense, (iii) case, (iv) internal legal resources, (v) external legal resources?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 464--
Mr. Greg McLean:
With regard to the government's campaign for a United Nations Security Council seat in 2021: how much has been spent on hospitality-related expenses, broken down by (i) date, (ii) item or service?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 465--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the response from Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to COVID-19 outbreaks in its facilities, specifically the Mission Medium Institution in British Columbia and the Port Cartier Institution in Quebec: (a) what protocols and procedures were enacted, and when, in the Port-Cartier Institution once COVID-19 was detected; (b) what protocols and procedures were enacted, and when, in the Mission Medium Institution in British Columbia once COVID-19 was detected; (c) are there standard pandemic protocols and procedures that are synchronized across the national CSC organization; (d) if the answer to (c) is negative, why; (e) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the differences between CSC’s response in the Port Cartier Institute when compared to CSC’s response in the Mission Medium Institution; (f) at the Mission Medium Institution, on what date was Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) provided to staff, and what type of PPE was distributed; (g) at the Mission Medium Institution, on what date was PPE provided to inmates, and what type of PPE was distributed; (h) at the Port Cartier Institution, on what date was Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) provided to staff, and what type of PPE was distributed; and (i) at the Port Cartier Institution, on what date was PPE provided to inmates, and what type of PPE was distributed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 466--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the $305 million Indigenous Community Support Fund (ICSF) contained within the federal government’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan, of which British Columbia First Nations were allocated $39,567,000 and British Columbia Métis were allocated $3,750,000: (a) how much funding was provided to each Indigenous band within or bordering Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, including Cook's Ferry, Skatin Nations, Douglas, Spuzzum, Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation, Samahquam, Sts'ailes, Bridge River, Tsal'alh, Ashcroft, Boston Bar First Nation, Skawahlook First Nation, Sq'éwlets, Bonaparte, Nicomen, Leq' a: mel First Nation, Union Bar First Nation, Kanaka Bar, Siska, Oregon Jack Creek, Boothroyd, Xaxli'p, T'it'q'et, Matsqui, Shackan, Skuppah, Seabird Island, Chawathil, Yale First Nation, Cayoose Creek, Lytton, High Bar, and Stswecem'c Xgat'tem; (b) which existing agreements are being used to transfer those funds, broken down by band; (c) what reporting requirements are in place, broken down by band and by contribution agreement; (d) how are bands required to communicate to their members how emergency funds were spent; and (e) how are bands required to report to Indigenous Services Canada their receipts or a record of how funds were spent or disbursed to support band members?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 467--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to government stockpiles of personal protective equipment (PPE): (a) what was the specific volume of PPE supplies in the stockpile as of February 1, 2020, broken down by item; (b) how many supplies of PPE were, destroyed, disposed of, or otherwise removed from the stockpile between January 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020; (c) what are the details of all instances in (b), including the (i) date, (ii) number of items removed, broken down by type of item, (iii) reason for removal; and (d) what are the details of each time items were added to the stockpile between January 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020, including the (i) date, (ii) items added, (iii) volume, (iv) financial value?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 468--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased since January 1, 2020: (a) how many items of PPE have been purchased; (b) what was the price of each item at the time of purchase, broken down by (i) date of purchase, (ii) item, (iii) the total amount of each type of PPE per transaction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 469--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to contaminated swabs and faulty or rejected N95 masks purchased by Public Services and Procurement Canada: (a) which suppliers provided these items; and (b) since January 1, 2016, what other purchases have been made by the government from these suppliers broken down by (i) date of purchase, (ii) item or service purchased, (iii) number of units of item or service purchased per transaction?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 470--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) since January 1, 2020: (a) how many Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs) relating to PPE have been posted; (b) for the ACANs in (a), (i) how many bidders were there for each notice, (ii) who were the bidders for each notice; and (c) who won each contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 471--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to preparation and response to COVID-19: (a) which provinces and territories have signed the Multi-Lateral Information Sharing Agreement (MLISA), and on what dates were each of their signatures provided; (b) which provinces and territories have declined to sign the MLISA, on what dates were each of their refusals provided, and what objections did each raise to signing; (c) which provinces and territories have withdrawn from the MLISA since signing it, and on what dates were their withdrawals effective; (d) is the MLISA currently in force, and, if not, why not; (e) which provinces and territories have signed the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Memorandum of Understanding on the Sharing of Information During a Public Health Emergency (Sharing MOU), and on what dates were each of their signatures provided; (f) which provinces and territories have declined to sign the Sharing MOU, and on what dates were their refusals provided; (g) which provinces and territories have withdrawn from the Sharing MOU since signing it, and on what dates were their withdrawals effective; (h) is the Sharing MOU currently in force, and, if not, why not; (i) which provinces and territories are using the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) COVID-19 Case Report Form; (j) what percentage of known COVID-19 cases in Canada were reported to the PHAC using its COVID-19 Case Report Form versus other means; (k) when the PHAC’s COVID-19 Case Report Form instructs to "report cases electronically using secure methods or fax”, which secure methods does the PHAC utilize, and which methods are used, broken down by provinces and territories; (l) what percentage of known COVID-19 cases reported to the PHAC were reported using fax or paper; (m) how many full-time equivalents does the PHAC employ or have on contract to enter COVID-19 case reports received by fax or paper into electronic means; (n) what is the shortest, longest, and average delay that the PHAC experiences when a COVID-19 case report is received by fax or paper before it is entered into electronic means; (o) what is the reason for the discrepancy between the total number of cases of COVID-19 reported by the Government of Canada on its “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Outbreak update” website, and the smaller number of cases with specific epidemiological data on the website entitled “Detailed confirmed cases of coronavirus disease”; (p) what are the factors that contribute to the delay between the reporting of the “episode date” of a COVID-19 case and the “date [the] case was last updated”, with reference to the data referred to in (o); (q) which provinces and territories have objected to the public disclosure of their detailed COVID-19 case data, as on the “Detailed confirmed cases of coronavirus disease” website, and for each province and territory, what are the details or summary of their objection; (r) why, in developing its COVID-19 Case Report Form, did the PHAC choose not to collect the ethnicity or race of individuals, as done in other jurisdictions; (s) why has the government never used its powers under section 15 of the Public Health Agency of Canada Act to better collect and analyze COVID-19 case data held by the provinces; (t) why has the PHAC not yet published an epidemiological model of COVID-19 that includes a scientifically detailed public disclosure of the modelling methodology, computer code, and input parameters; (u) what are the reasons that the PHAC does not publish a daily COVID-19 model that includes up-to-date estimates of the effective reproductive number (R), such as that produced by Norway, in its model of May 8, 2020; (v) what is the value, duration, objectives and deliverables of the contract issued by the Government of Canada to Blue Dot for the modelling of COVID-19, announced by the Prime Minister on March 23, 2020; (w) which other individuals or companies has the Government of Canada contracted for the modelling of COVID-19, and, for each contract, what is the (i) value, (ii) duration, (iii) objectives, (iv) deliverables; (x) do any of the contracts for COVID-19 limit the freedom of the contractors to disclose the information, methodology, or findings of their models as confidential, and, if so, which contracts are so affected, and what are the terms of the confidentiality; (y) what is the total amount of federal spending on the Panorama public health and vaccination data system since its launch; (z) which provinces and territories utilize Panorama’s disease outbreak management and communicable disease case management modules for reporting COVID-19 information to the federal government; (aa) to what extent does the federal government have access to COVID-19 outbreak and case data contained within the Panorama system and what are the reasons for the lack of access to data, if any; (bb) what steps has the federal government taken to ensure that, when data exists, it will have access to COVID-19 vaccination data contained within the Panorama system; (cc) to what extent does the Panorama system meet the data collection and reporting goals of the federal government’s report entitled “Learning from SARS – Renewal of Public Health in Canada”; and (dd) has an audit of the Panorama system been completed and, if so, what are the details of the audit’s findings, including when it was done, by whom it was conducted, and the standards by which it was measured?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 475--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to farm income loss as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) has Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or Farm Credit Canada conducted an analysis on projected farm income loss as a result of the pandemic; and (b) what is the projected loss, broken down by agricultural sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 476--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to physical distancing and other safety measures for ministerial vehicles and chauffeurs during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) what specific measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of drivers, including whether (i) ministers are required to wear masks in the vehicles, (ii) there is an occupancy limit to the vehicles, (iii) specific seats within the vehicles may not be used, (iv) there is a prohibition on others, including ministerial exempt staff, riding in the vehicles, (v) any other measures have been made to limit close physical contact between drivers and ministers; (b) on what date was each measure listed in (a), (i) put into place, (ii) amended, (iii) rescinded; and (c) have any ministers required their drivers to drive outside of the National Capital Region since March 13, 2020, and, if so, what are the details of each trip, including (i) date of trip, (ii) destination, (iii) purpose of trip, (iv) number of occupants in the vehicle, (v) whether a minister was in the vehicle, (vi) specific safety precautions taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 477--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), since the creation of the program: (a) how many businesses have applied for the LEEFF; (b) how many businesses have been eligible; (c) how many applications from businesses have been denied; (d) of the applications that were denied, how many were from (i) businesses convicted of tax evasion, (ii) businesses convicted of abusive tax avoidance, (iii) companies that have subsidiaries in tax havens; (e) have applications from companies under investigation in connection with the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers been accepted; and (f) what is the current total cost of the LEEFF’s expenses, broken down by economic sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 478--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and tax havens: (a) what is the CRA's definition of tax haven; and (b) which jurisdictions have been identified as tax havens according to the CRA's definition?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 479--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to the activities of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) under Part XVI of the Income Tax Act since November 2015, broken down by fiscal year and natural person, trust and corporation: (a) how many audits have been conducted; (b) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; and (c) what is the total amount recovered to date by the CRA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 480--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regards to Veterans Affairs Canada, broken down by year for the most recent ten fiscal years for which data is available: (a) what was the number of disability benefit applications received; (b) of the applications in (a), how many were (i) rejected (ii) approved (iii) appealed (iv) rejected upon appeal (v) approved upon appeal; (c) what was the average wait time for a decision; (d) what was the median wait time for a decision; (e) what was the ratio of veteran to Case Manager at the end of each fiscal year; (f) what was the number of applications awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year; and (g) what was the number of veterans awaiting a decision at the end of each fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 481--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, what was the total number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by job title, including National 1st Level Appeals Officer, National 2nd Level Appeals Officer, Case Manager, Veterans Service Agent and Disability Adjudicator; (b) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, what was the average number of overtime hours worked, further broken down by (i) job title, including National 1st Level Appeals Officer, National 2nd Level Appeals Officer, Case Manager, Veterans Service Agent and Disability Adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (c) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, what was the total cost of overtime, further broken down by (i) job title, including National 1st Level Appeals Officer, National 2nd Level Appeals Officer, Case Manager, Veterans Service Agent and Disability Adjudicator, (ii) directorate; (d) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, what was the total number of disability benefit claims, further broken down by (i) new claims, (ii) claims awaiting a decision, (iii) approved claims, (iv) denied claims, (v) appealed claims; (e) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, how many new disability benefit claims were transferred to a different Veterans Affairs Canada office than that which conducted the intake; (f) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, what was the number of (i) Case Managers, (ii) Veterans Service Agents; (g) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many Case Managers took a leave of absence, and what was the average length of a leave of absence; (h) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, accounting for all leaves of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave, how many full-time equivalent Case Managers were present and working, and what was the Case Manager to veteran ratio; (i) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, how many veterans were disengaged from their Case Manager; (j) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, what was the highest number of cases assigned to an individual Case Manager; (k) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, how many veterans were on a waitlist for a Case Manager; (l) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month and by VAC offices, including nationally, for work usually done by regularly employed Case Managers and Veteran Service Agents, (i) how many contracts were awarded, (ii) what was the duration of each contract, (iii) what was the value of each contract; (m) during the most recent fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by VAC offices, what were the service standard results; (n) what is the mechanism for tracking the transfer of cases between Case Managers when a Case Manager takes a leave of absence, excluding standard vacation and paid sick leave; (o) what is the department’s current method for calculating the Case Manager to veteran ratio; (p) what are the department’s quality assurance measures for Case Managers and how do they change based on the number of cases a Case Manager has at that time; (q) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many individuals were hired by the department; (r) how many of the individuals in (q) remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (s) of the individuals in (q) who did not remain employed beyond the probation period, how many did not have their contracts extended by the department; (t) does the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what are the reasons for which employees were not kept beyond the probation period; (u) for the individuals in (q) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC offices; (v) during the last five fiscal years for which data is available, broken down by month, how many Canadian Armed Forces service veterans were hired by the department; (w) of the veterans in (v), how many remained employed after their 12-month probation period came to an end; (x) of the veterans in (v) who are no longer employed by the department, (i) how many did not have their employment contracts extended by the department, (ii) how many were rejected on probation; (y) if the department track the reasons for which employees are not kept beyond the probation period, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what are the reasons for which veteran employees are not kept beyond the probation period; (z) for the veterans in (v) who chose not to remain at any time throughout the 12 months, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual veteran employees, what were the reasons for their leaving, broken down by VAC offices; (aa) during the last five fiscal year for which data is available, broken down by month, how many employees have quit their jobs at VAC; and (bb) for the employees in (aa) who quit their job, were exit interviews conducted, and, if so, respecting the privacy of individual employees, what were the reasons, broken down by VAC offices?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 482--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and tax havens: Does the CRA consider the Cayman Islands and Barbados to be tax havens?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 483--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to tax information exchange agreement signed between Canada and Cayman Islands, since entry into force of the agreement and broken down by fiscal year: (a) how many times has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) obtained information from Cayman Islands; (b) how many times has the CRA released information to Cayman Islands; (c) how much tax examinations abroad was conducted by CRA in Cayman Islands; (d) how many CRA enquiries have been denied by the Cayman Islands; (e) how many audits have been conducted by the CRA; (f) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; and (g) what is the total amount recovered by the CRA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 484--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to amendments to the Canada Grain Regulations (SOR/2020-63), enacted through the passage of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, which amended the Canada Grain Act through an expedited process, bypassing the normal Canada Gazette I posting and public comment period, and were posted on Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 154, Number 9: (a) what are the details of all meetings, round tables, teleconference calls, town halls, and other means of consultation, in regard to grain, held during CUSMA/NAFTA 2.0 negotiations, including the (i) dates, (ii) locations, (iii) agendas, (iv) minutes, (v) attendee and invitee lists, including government officials and agriculture sector stakeholders, and their organizational affiliations; (b) for the meetings referred to in (a), what are the details of (i) published notices, (ii) reports, including where and when they were published; (c) what are the details of all stakeholder views expressed during these consultations, including minority positions, which were communicated to inform the Government of Canada negotiating position, along with the names and positions of the officials to whom these stakeholder views were communicated; (d) what are the details of all engagement activities with grain sector stakeholders following the CUSMA announcement where the impacts of the agreement, potential legislative and regulatory amendments, and implementation plans were discussed, as well as the reports flowing from these engagement activities that informed the drafting of Bill C-4 amendments to the Canada Grain Act, including the (i) dates, (ii) locations, (iii) agendas, (iv) minutes, (v) attendees, including from the Canada Grain Commission and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials and agriculture sector stakeholders, and their organizational affiliations; (e) who made the decision to have “minimal” consultation on the regulatory changes and an explanation of their rationale for the decision when, as the regulatory analysis document says, the amendments are consequential; and (f) what is the definition of the industry referred to when “industry-led” is used in regard to integrating the Delivery Declaration Form and its implementation into the existing grain delivery structure, particularly whether farmers are included among the leadership of the industry?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-431-425 Personal protective equipment8555-431-426 Additional funding for agen ...8555-431-427 Canada Emergency Care Benefit8555-431-428 Government meetings8555-431-429 Early releases from federal ...8555-431-430 COVID-198555-431-431 Personal protective equipment8555-431-432 Mobile tactical vehicles8555-431-433 Role 2 and Role 3 hospitals8555-431-434 Bank of Canada8555-431-435 Bank of Canada ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 380--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the trip of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to Madrid, Spain, for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2019: (a) who travelled with the minister, excluding security personnel and journalists, broken down by (i) name, (ii) title; (b) what is the total cost of the trip to taxpayers, and, if the final cost is not available, what is the best estimate of the cost of the trip to taxpayers; (c) what were the costs for (i) accommodation, (ii) food, (iii) anything else, including a description of each expense; (d) what are the details of all the meetings attended by the minister and those on the trip, including the (i) date, (ii) summary or description, (iii) participants, (iv) topics discussed; and (e) did any advocates, consultant lobbyists or business representatives accompany the minister, and, if so, what are their names, and on behalf of which firms did they accompany the minister?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 381--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to recommendation 3.30 in Report 3 on fossil fuel tax subsidies of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development: (a) has the Department of Finance established criteria to determine whether a fossil fuel tax subsidy is inefficient, and, if so, what are these criteria and what is the department's definition of "inefficient"; and (b) does the Department of Finance still refuse to implement this recommendation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 382--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the notice and order sent by a railway safety inspector from Transport Canada to the Central Maine and Quebec Railway dated May 7, 2019: (a) how many ultrasonic rail tests were done on the Sherbrooke subdivision between mileage point 0 and mileage point 125.46, broken down by inspection period (i) between May 1 and June 30, (ii) between September 1 and October 31, (iii) between January 1 and February 28; (b) are the inspection frequencies in (a) still in force, and, if not, why; (c) for each inspection period in (a), what findings were sent to Transport Canada; (d) how many rails are currently faulty; and (e) how many faulty rails does Transport Canada believe are satisfactory for railway safety?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 383--
Mrs. Carol Hughes:
With regard to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and his performance agreement with the CIB Board of Directors, broken down by performance cycle since the inception of the CIB: (a) what are the objectives based on the corporate business plan and related performance measures; (b) what are the objectives that reflect the government's priority areas of focus and related performance measures; (c) what are the objectives based on financial management priorities and related performance measures; (d) which objectives are based on risk management priorities and any other management objectives set by the Board of Directors (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.); (e) which objectives are based on the government's priorities for financial management and related performance measures (infrastructure, marketing, governance, public affairs, etc.); (f) what are the detailed results of the performance measures for each of the objectives in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) what were the details of the CEO's compensation, including salary and performance-based variable compensation; (h) how many times was the performance agreement amended during each performance cycle and what was the rationale for each amendment; (i) what was the CEO's performance rating as recommended to the responsible minister by the Board of Directors; (j) which performance objectives were met; (k) which performance objectives could not be assessed and why; (l) which performance objectives were not met; (m) did the CEO receive an economic increase, and, if so, why; (n) did the CEO receive a salary range progression, and, if so, what is the rationale; and (o) did the CEO receive a lump sum payment, and, if so, what was the rationale?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 384--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency: what is the number of audits performed on small businesses since 2015, broken down by year and by province or territory?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 385--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the usage of the government's Challenger aircraft fleet, since December 1, 2019: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 386--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the commitment made in budget 2017 to invest $5 billion over 10 years for home care, including palliative care: (a) what is the total amount of allocated funding not yet spent; (b) what is the total amount of allocated funding transferred to provinces and territories, broken down by recipient province or territory; (c) what is the complete list of projects which have received funding; and (d) for each project identified in (c), what are the details, including (i) overall funding committed, (ii) amount of federal funding provided to date, (iii) description of services funded, (iv) province or territory in which the project is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 387--
Mr. Ted Falk:
With regard to the commitment made in budget 2017 to invest $184.6 million over five years for home and palliative care for First Nations and Inuit: (a) what is the total amount of allocated funding not yet spent; (b) what is the complete list of projects which have received funding; and (c) for each project identified in (b), what are the details, including (i) overall funding committed, (ii) amount of federal funding provided to date, (iii) description of services funded, (iv) province or territory in which the project is located?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 388--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the Paradise Papers case, the fight against tax non-compliance abroad and abusive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files are currently open with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) what is the number of employees assigned to the Paradise Papers files; (d) how many audits have been conducted since the Paradise Papers were disclosed; (e) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; and (f) what is the total amount recovered so far by the CRA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 389--
Ms. Sylvie Bérubé:
With regard to the consultations that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is currently holding in order to develop an action plan to implement the 231 calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: (a) has the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations established a committee to develop this action plan; (b) if so, what mechanisms have been put in place to consult the Government of Quebec about the development of this action plan, including the implementation of the 21 Quebec-specific calls for justice in the report; and (c) if a committee has been established, will the Government of Quebec participate in its work?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 390--
Ms. Sylvie Bérubé:
With regard to the drinking water situation in Kitigan Zibi: has the Department of Indigenous Services (i) analyzed the plans that were submitted by the band council to connect to the Maniwaki water system, (ii) decided whether it will proceed with the connection, (iii) released the funding necessary to complete the connection work, (iv) set a timeline so that the community has access to running water within a reasonable time?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 391--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:
With regard to forms used by the Government of Canada, broken down by year for the last 10 years: (a) how many forms does the government use; (b) to how many pages do the forms add up; (c) how many person-hours a year do Canadians spend filling out forms for the government; and (d) how many person-hours do government employees spend processing forms filled out by Canadians?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 392--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the call centres of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for the fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19, broken down by business and by individual: (a) what is the number of calls received by the CRA; (b) what is the number of calls that were neither answered by an agent nor transferred to the automated self-service system; (c) what is the number of calls received by the automated self-service system; (d) what is the number of calls answered by an agent; (e) what is the number of calls not answered, broken down by (i) the number of callers who did not choose to use self-service through the automated service, (ii) the number of callers who got a busy signal; (f) what is the average time spent waiting to speak to an agent; (g) what is the change in the number of agents, broken down by (i) month, (ii) call centre; (h) what is the error rate for call centre agents, broken down by (i) National Quality and Accuracy Learning Program, (ii) Audit, Evaluation and Risk Branch; and (j) what is the number of call centres that have completed the transition to the new telephony platform as part of the Government of Canada Contact Centre Transformation Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 393--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the sales tax system between 2011 and 2019, broken down by year: (a) how many compliance audits have been conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to determine whether suppliers of digital goods and services are domestic or foreign and whether they are required to register for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST); (b) for the compliance audits in (a), how many additional revenue assessments were issued as a result of these audits and what was the total amount; (c) how many GST and HST forms had been submitted by consumers to the CRA for digital goods and services purchased in Canada from foreign suppliers not carrying on business in Canada or not having a permanent establishment in Canada; (d) how many compliance audits have been conducted by the CRA to determine whether taxpayers in Canada who rent their housing for short periods of time are required to register for the GST and HST; (e) for audits in (d), how many additional income assessments have been issued as a result of these audits and what is the total amount of these assessments; and (f) has the CRA finalized the development of a specific compliance strategy to better detect and address GST and HST non-compliance in the e-commerce sector, and, if so, what are the details of this strategy?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 394--
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the Canadian Passport Order, since November 4, 2015, in order to prevent the commission of any act or omission referred to in subsection 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, broken down by month: how many passports has the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (i) refused, (ii) revoked, (iii) cancelled?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 395--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying): what is the government’s definition of “reasonably foreseeable” in relation to the context of the bill?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 396--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the finding published in the 2018-19 Departmental Results Report of the Privy Council Office (PCO) that only 75% of ministers were satisfied with the service and advice provided by the PCO: (a) how was that number determined; (b) which ministers were among the 25% who were not satisfied; and (c) did any of those ministers indicate why they were not satisfied, and, if so, what were the reasons?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 397--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to sole sourced contracts over $10,000 issued by the Canadian Coast Guard since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor name, (iv) vendor location, including city or municipality, province or territory, country, and federal riding, if applicable, (v) start and end date of contract, (vi) description of goods or services provided, including quantity, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 398--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
With regard to the finding published in the 2018-19 Departmental Results Report of the Privy Council Office (PCO) that 93% of cabinet documents distributed to ministers met the PCO’s standards: (a) in what ways did the other 7% of documents fail to meet the PCO’s standards; (b) why were the non-compliant documents circulated to ministers despite not complying with the standards; and (c) how many of the non-compliant documents were circulated as a result of the direction of (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) his exempt staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 399--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the mortgage insurance and securitization activities carried out by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) on behalf of the government in the fiscal years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19: (a) what was the CMHC’s total annual authorization from the government to provide new guarantees on National Housing Act Mortgage Backed Securities (NHA MBS), broken down by fiscal year; (b) what was the CMHC’s total annual authorization from the government to provide new guarantees on Canada Mortgage Bonds (CMB), broken down by year; (c) what was the CMHC’s total annual limit for the issuance of portfolio insurance (non transactional), broken down by year; (d) for the portfolio insurance issued in each fiscal year, what was the lender allocation methodology for portfolio insurance and what was the total value allocated to each of the largest six Canadian lenders; (e) for the NHA MBS issued in each fiscal year, was there a lender allocation methodology and what was the total value of NHA MBS, broken down by the largest six Canadian lenders; (f) for the CMB issued in each fiscal year, was there a lender allocation methodology and what was the total value of NHA MBS purchased from each of the largest six Canadian lenders for the purpose of converting the MBS into CMB; (g) for the CMB auctioned in each fiscal year, what percentage were purchased by Canadian investors compared to international investors; (h) for the CMB auctioned in each fiscal year, what percentage were purchased by the Bank of Canada and other investors for which the government is the sole or majority shareholder; (i) for the CMB auctioned in each fiscal year, what was the value purchased by the Bank of Canada and other investors for which the government is the sole or majority shareholder; (j) for the NHA MBS issued in each fiscal year, what percentage were retained by the issuing financial institution for their own balance sheet management purposes; and (k) what is the position of the government on increasing the covered bond issuance limit for federally regulated financial institutions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 400--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the government preparations in relation to the coronavirus (COVID-19): (a) what specific procedures are in place at each department and agency to ensure the continuity of government operations and that government services remain available during a pandemic; (b) what specific procedures are in place to ensure the safety and protection of government employees during a pandemic, including any procedures aimed at preventing employees from being exposed to coronavirus; and (c) what is the government’s remuneration, leave or benefit policy for (i) full-time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) casual employees, who are required to be quarantined or otherwise away from the workplace as a result of coronavirus?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 401--
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay:
With regard to the criminal charges the government laid in December 2019 against the Volkswagen Group concerning the approximately 120,000 diesel vehicles whose nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions exceeded the standards allowed, broken down by the German companies of the Volkswagen Group, the Canadian companies of the Volkswagen Group, the U.S. companies of the Volkswagen Group, and directors, executives and employees: (a) why did the government file charges for 58 counts of importing non-compliant vehicles instead of one count for each of the 120,000 offences; (b) why did the government file charges for two counts of misleading information instead of one count for each of the 120,000 offences; (c) why did the government not file any charges against the Canadian companies of the Volkswagen Group; (d) why did the government not file any charges against the U.S. companies of the Volkswagen Group that took part in the illegal acts that affected Canada; (e) why did the government not file any charges against the directors, executives and employees who were involved in these offences; (f) why did the government not file any charges regarding the 120,000 offences for selling, renting or distributing these non-compliant vehicles; (g) why did the government not file any charges of fraud concerning the 120,000 pieces of software that prevented the non-compliance from being detected; and (h) why did the government not file any charges regarding the illegal pollution caused by these 120,000 vehicles in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 402--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy: for each defence procurement project, what projects or transactions have been approved as meeting the contractor’s obligations under the ITB Policy, broken down by (i) contractor, (ii) procurement project, (iii) fiscal year since 2016-17?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 403--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to government funding for the Scarborough Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension: (a) what will be the total amount of government funding for each of the projects; and (b) what is the yearly breakdown of when the funding in (a) will be delivered for each year between 2020 and 2030?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 404--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to search and rescue military operations, since January 1, 2018: what are the details of all instances where a call for emergency assistance was received but personnel were either delayed or unable to provide the emergency assistance requested, including the (i) date of the call, (ii) nature of the incident, (iii) response provided, (iv) length of delay between the call being received and assistance being deployed, if applicable, (v) location of the incident, (vi) reason for the delay, (vii) reason assistance was not provided, if applicable?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 405--
Mr. Martin Shields:
With regard to the government’s Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel: why are there not any panel members from a province other than Ontario or Quebec?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 406--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the 4,710 individuals who were admitted to Canada in 2019 via humanitarian, compassionate, and other grounds: how many of them were admitted by ministerial exemption, in total and broken down by federal riding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 407--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to visas issued by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada since May 1, 2019: (a) how many Cuban citizens have applied for Canadian visitor visas (temporary resident visas); (b) how many Cuban citizens have applied for Canadian study permits; (c) how many Cuban citizens have applied for Canadian work permits; (d) how many Cuban citizens have been approved for Canadian visitor visas (temporary resident visas); (e) how many Cuban citizens have been approved for Canadian study permits; (f) how many Cuban citizens have been approved for Canadian work permits; (g) how many Cuban citizens have been denied Canadian visitor visas (temporary resident visas); (h) how many Cuban citizens have been denied Canadian study permits; (i) how many Cuban citizens have been denied Canadian work permits; (j) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to single adult men; (k) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to single adult women; (l) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to married men; (m) for the visas in (d), (e) and (f), how many visas were issued to married women; (n) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to single adult men; (o) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to single adult women; (p) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to married men; and (q) for the visas in (g), (h) and (i), how many visas were denied to married women?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 408--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to judicial nominations, broken down by year, since 2016, and by province and territory: (a) how many judicial candidates assessed as “highly recommended” by a judicial appointments advisory committee were appointed as judges; (b) how many judicial candidates assessed as “recommended” by a judicial appointments advisory committee were appointed as judges; and (c) how many judicial candidates assessed as “unable to recommend” by a judicial appointments advisory committee were appointed as judges?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 409--
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the Panama Papers case, the fight against tax non-compliance abroad and abusive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files are currently open with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA); (b) how many taxpayer or Canadian business files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) what is the number of employees assigned to the Panama Papers files; (d) how many audits have been conducted since the Panama Papers were disclosed; (e) how many notices of assessment have been issued by the CRA; and (f) what is the total amount recovered so far by the CRA?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 410--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the decision to award SAP the contract to replace the Phoenix pay system: (a) what will the differences be between the SAP replacement system and the current Phoenix pay system; (b) what are the details of any financial agreements or contracts the government has with SAP in relation to the replacement pay system (e.g. value, start date, rate, scope, etc.); and (c) when does the government expect the current Phoenix pay system to be transferred to the replacement SAP system?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 411--
Mr. Philip Lawrence:
With regard to the government response to the rail blockades in February and March of 2020: (a) what was the total estimated economic impact of the blockades; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by industry and province; and (c) what are the details of any financial assistance provided by the government for individuals or businesses impacted by the blockades?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 412--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to the administration of the 2019 federal general election: (a) has the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to subsection 477.72(4) of the Canada Elections Act, informed the Speaker of the House of Commons of any candidates elected as members of the House that were not entitled to continue to sit or vote as members, and, if so, who were these candidates; and (b) with respect to each candidate in (a), (i) on what date did the entitlement to sit or vote become suspended, (ii) on what date did the Chief Electoral Officer inform the Speaker, (iii) which requirement of the act was not satisfied, (iv) has the requirement in (b)(iii) been subsequently satisfied, and, if so, on what date was it satisfied?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 413--
Ms. Nelly Shin:
With regard to information requests received by departments or agencies from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all requests and responses, including the (i) request, (ii) date it was received, (iii) date when the information was provided; and (b) what are the details, including the reasons, for all instances where the information was either delayed or not provided to the PBO?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 414--
Mr. Jagmeet Singh:
With regard to the three tax provisions proposed in the Fall Economic Statement 2018 to accelerate business investment for the 2018-19 fiscal year: (a) what is the estimated number of businesses that have benefited, broken down by (i) tax provision, (ii) size of business, (iii) economic sector; (b) what is the estimated increase in total business investment since the three tax provisions came into force; (c) what is the estimate of the number of jobs created by businesses in Canada since the coming into force of these three tax provisions; and (d) what is the estimate of the number of businesses that have chosen to continue operating in Canada rather than relocate abroad since the coming into force of these three tax provisions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 415--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to claimed stock option deductions, between the 2012 and 2019 tax years inclusively, broken down by tax years: (a) what is the number of individuals who claimed the stock option deduction whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (b) what is the average amount claimed by an individual whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; (c) what is the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is (i) less than $60,000, (ii) less than $100,000, (iii) less than $200,000, (iv) between $200,000 and $1 million, (v) more than $1 million; and (d) what is the percentage of the total amount claimed by individuals whose total annual income is more than $1 million?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 416--
Mr. Colin Carrie:
With regard to the government’s commitment to return the $1.3 billion in surtax assessed on U.S. steel, aluminum, and other products to affected industries between the 2018-19 and the 2023-24 fiscal years: (a) how does the government explain the discrepancy with the estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the government will return $105 million less than it assessed in surtax and related revenues over the period; (b) how does the government plan to return the $1.3 billion; and (c) what is the breakdown of the $1.3 billion by industry and recipient?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 417--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the $180.4 million listed in Supplementary Estimates (B) 2019-20 under Department of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) to write off 33,098 debts from the Canada Student Loan Program: (a) what information was shared between ESDC and the Canada Revenue Agency to determine which loans would be written off; (b) what specific measures are being taken to ensure that none of the written off loans are from individuals who have the income or means to pay back the loans; and (c) what was the threshold or criteria used to determine which loans would be written off?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 418--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the $17.6 million contract awarded to Peter Kiewit Sons ULC for the Big Bar Landslide Fish Passage Remediation Project on the Fraser River: (a) how many bids were received for the project; (b) of the bids received, how many bids met the criteria for qualification; (c) who made the decision to award the contract to Peter Kiewit Sons ULC; (d) when was the decision made; (e) what is the start date and end date of the contract; (f) what is the specific work expected to be completed as a result of the contract; and (g) was the fact that the company is currently facing criminal negligence causing death charges considered during the evaluation of the bid, and, if not, why not?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 419--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to investments in Budget 2019 for the Forest Innovation Program, the Investments in Forestry Industry Transformation Program, the Expanding Market Opportunities program, and the Indigenous Forestry Initiative: (a) how many proposals have been received for each program to date; (b) how much of the funding has been delivered to date; (c) what are the proposal criteria for each program; and (d) what are the details of the allocated funding, including the (i) organization, (ii) location, (iii) date of allocation, (iv) amount of funding, (v) project description or purpose of funding?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 420--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to Transport Canada Concern Paper C-FT-03 (Boeing 737-8 MAX) (file number 5010-A268): (a) on what date did the Minister of Transport, or his office receive or become aware of the document; (b) what action, if any, did the minister take in response to the concerns raised in the document; (c) on what date was the Minister of Transport, or his office, first notified of the concerns raised the document; (d) what action, if any did the minister take in response to the concern; (e) when did deputy minister's office receive the document; (f) on what date was the Minister of Transport, or his office, made aware of Transport Canada's concerns regarding the nose down pitch not readily arrested behaviour in relation to the aerodynamic stall of the 737-8 MAX; (g) was a briefing note on the concern paper provided to the minister or his staff, and, if so, what are the details of the briefing note, including the (i) date, (ii) title, (iii) summary of contents, (iv) sender, (v) recipient, (vi) file number; and (h) what was the Minister of Transport's response to the briefing note in (g)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 421--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), since July 15, 2018: (a) how many air passenger complaints have been received, broken down by the subject matter of the complaint; (b) of the complaints received in (a), how many have been resolved, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (c) how many air passenger complaints were dismissed, withdrawn and declined, broken down by (i) subject matter of the complaint, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (d) for each complaint in (a), how many cases were resolved by a settlement; (e) how many full-time equivalent agency case officers are assigned to deal with air travel complaints, broken down by agency case officers dealing with (i) the facilitation process, (ii) the mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (f) what is the average number of air travel complaints handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with (i) the facilitation process, (ii) the mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (g) what is the number of air travel complaints received but not yet handled by an agency case officer, broken down by agency case officers dealing with (i) the facilitation process, (ii) the mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (h) in how many cases were passengers told by CTA facilitators that they were not entitled to compensation, broken down by rejection category; (i) among cases in (h), what was the reason for CTA facilitators not to refer the passengers and the airlines to the Montreal Convention that is incorporated in the international tariff (terms and conditions) of the airlines; (j) how does the CTA define a "resolved" complaint for the purposes of reporting it in its statistics; (k) when a complainant chooses not to pursue a complaint, does it count as "resolved"; (l) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to an officer to be assigned to the case, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; (m) how many business days on average does it effectively take from the filing of a complaint to reaching a settlement, broken down by (i) facilitation process, (ii) mediation process, (iii) adjudication; and (n) for complaints in (a), what is the percentage of complaints that were not resolved in accordance with the service standards?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 422--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to aviation safety: (a) what was the annual failure rate from 2005 to 2019 for the Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) conducted by Transport Canada inspectors for pilots working for 705 operators under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs); (b) what was the annual failure rate from 2005 to 2019 for the PPC in cases where industry-approved check pilots conducted the PPC for pilots working for Subpart 705 operators; (c) how many annual verification inspections did Transport Canada inspectors conduct between 2007 and 2019; (d) how many annual Safety Management System assessments, program validation inspections and process inspections of 705, 704, 703 and 702 operators were conducted between 2008 and 2019; (e) how many annual inspections and audits of 705, 704, 703 and 702 system operators were carried out pursuant to Transport Canada manual TP8606 between 2008 and 2019; (f) how many aircraft operator group inspectors did Transport Canada have from 2011 to 2019, broken down by year; (g) what discrepancies has Transport Canada identified between its pilot qualification policies and the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 2005; (h) what are the ICAO requirements for pilot proficiency checks and what are the Canadian PPC requirements for subparts 705, 704, 703 and 604 of CARs; (i) does Transport Canada plan to hire new inspectors, and, if so, what target has it set for hiring new inspectors, broken down by category of inspectors; (j) what is the current number of air safety inspectors at Transport Canada; (k) for each fiscal year from 2010-11 to 2018-19, broken down by fiscal year (i) how many air safety inspectors were there, (ii) what was the training budget for air safety inspectors, (iii) how many hours were allocated to air safety inspector training; and (l) how many air safety inspectors are anticipated for (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21, (iii) 2021-22?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 423--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the National Housing Strategy: what is the total amount of funding provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for each year since 2017, broken down by province, for (i) the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (ii) the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iii) the Housing Partnership Framework, (iv) the Federal Lands Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 424--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the government’s plan to introduce a new fund to help municipalities and school boards purchase 5,000 zero-emission buses over the next five years: (a) has the government undertaken any forecasting on the total cost of this commitment, and, if so, (i) how much is this commitment forecasted to cost municipalities and school boards, (ii) what is the expected cost of associated charging infrastructure; (b) how much will be provided by the federal government annually in this new fund; (c) what proportion of the total cost to municipalities will be provided by the federal government through this new fund; (d) what will be the application process for municipalities and school boards; (e) will funding be based on ridership in line with existing transit funding; and (f) how does the government plan on ensuring that transit agencies are not forced to delay or forego other transit expansions to purchase zero-emission buses in line with this target?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-431-380 Trip of the Minister of Env ...8555-431-381 Report 3 on fossil fuel tax ...8555-431-382 Railway safety8555-431-383 Chief Executive Officer of ...8555-431-384 Canada Revenue Agency8555-431-385 Challenger aircraft fleet8555-431-386 Home care8555-431-387 Home and palliative care fo ...8555-431-388 Paradise Papers case8555-431-389 Consultations by the Minist ...8555-431-390 Drinking water situation in ... ...Show all topics
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)

Question No. 245--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the electoral district of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, between the fiscal year 2005-06 and the current year: what are all the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc., broken down by fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 246--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank: (a) what is the complete list of infrastructure projects financed by the bank since June 1, 2018; (b) for each project in (a), what are the details, including the (i) amount of federal financing, (ii) location of project, (iii) scheduled completion date of project, (iv) project description; and (c) what are the details of projects currently proposed for the bank, including the (i) proposed date of commencement, (ii) location of project, (iii) proposed federal financing, (iv) project description?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 247--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Plan: (a) what is the total amount of approved funding; (b) what is the complete list of approved projects; and (c) for each project in (b), what are the details, including the (i) value of approved project, (ii) total amount of federal financing, (iii) location of project, (iv) project description, (v) scheduled completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 248--
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Plan: (a) what is the total amount of allocated funding not yet spent; (b) what is the complete list of proposed projects not yet assigned federal funding or assigned funding, but not yet commenced construction; and (c) for each project in (b), what are the details, including the (i) value of proposed project, (ii) total amount of federal financing, (iii) location of project, (iv) project description, (v) proposed completion date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 249--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Expansion Project: (a) what are the revenues generated by the Trans Mountain Pipeline, broken down by quarter, since the pipeline was purchased by the government; (b) what are the operating expenses less loan interest payments to run the Trans Mountain Pipeline, broken down by quarter, since the pipeline was purchased by the federal government; (c) what are the interest payments on the loan used to purchase the Trans Mountain Pipeline, broken down by quarter, since the pipeline was purchased by the government; (d) what is the profit or loss, broken down by quarter, on the Trans Mountain Pipeline since the pipeline was purchased by the government; (e) are the revenues generated by the Trans Mountain Pipeline covering the annual operating and interest payments on the loans the government used to buy the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Expansion; (f) on what date is the pipeline scheduled to be completed, including the month and year; (g) on what date is the pipeline scheduled to enter service, including the month and year; (h) what is the current estimated cost of construction for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project; (i) on what date was the Minister of Finance, or his office, advised in writing or verbally, by officials from either the Department of Finance or a Crown corporation or a government contractor that the estimated cost of construction for the expansion was more than $7.4 billion; and (j) on what date did the government become aware that the cost of completing the Trans Mountain Expansion Project was estimated to be greater than $7.4 billion?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 250--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Department of Finance and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth: (a) when and where were each of the council’s meetings held; (b) when were each of the council’s (i) in-person meetings, (ii) phone or video-conference sessions with stakeholders; (c) how much funding was allocated for (i) salaries, (ii) expenses, (iii) council operations, (iv) any other categories of funding not captured by the preceding; (d) how much was spent on (i) salaries, (ii) expenses, (iii) council operations, (iv) any other category of funding not captured by the preceding; and (e) for each of the recommendations in the council’s three reports, (i) what was the recommendation; (ii) which department or departments were tasked with actions following up on the recommendation, (iii) which team or teams within the department or departments were tasked with follow-up actions, (iv) was the action tasked further analysis of or implementation of the recommendation (e.g. feasibility studies or reports), (v) what actions were taken by these teams to implement or further analyze the recommendations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 251--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to government aircraft travelling between Canada and Costa Rica between December 15, 2019, and January 10, 2020: what are the details of the legs of each flight to and from Costa Rica, including the (i) type of aircraft, (ii) date, (iii) place of departure, (iv) place of arrival, (v) number of passengers, excluding RCMP protective detail, (vi) name of passengers, excluding RCMP protective detail, (vii) purpose of flight, (viii) food, beverage, and other catering costs?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 252--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor), since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of funding delivered by FedNor in fiscal year (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2016-17, (iii) 2017-18, (iv) 2018-19, (v) 2019-20; (b) for each instances in (a), what are the details, broken down by (i) program or funding stream, (ii) recipient, (iii) address of recipient, including the full address, city and postal code, (iv) mailing address of recipient, including the full address, city and postal code; and (c) for each instances in (b), what was the (i) total funding requested, (ii) total funding granted, (iii) description of project funded, (iv) status of project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 253--
Mr. Glen Motz:
With regard to government statistics related to crimes committed with firearms: (a) how many homicides have been committed in Canada with an AR-15 rifle; (b) how many armed robberies have been committed in Canada where the weapon used was an AR-15 rifle; (c) how many crimes of any sort have been committed in Canada where an AR-15 rifle was present; (d) if the answer to (c) is more than 0, what is the nature of the crime that was committed; (e) how many individuals who have received a Possession and Acquisition License have been convicted of (i) first-degree murder, (ii) second-degree murder, (iii) manslaughter, broken down by year since 2010; (f) how many individuals who have not received a Possession and Acquisition License have been convicted of (i) first-degree murder, (ii) second-degree murder, (iii) manslaughter; (g) for individuals referred to in (e) and (f), how many of these incidents involved a firearm, broken down by year since 2010; (h) how many individuals who have been released on bail and are awaiting trial have been convicted of (i) first-degree murder, (ii) second-degree murder, (iii) manslaughter, broken down by year since 2010; (i) how many individuals who have been released from prison on conditional release have been convicted of (i) first-degree murder, (ii) second-degree murder, (iii) manslaughter, broken down by year since 2010; (j) how many individuals who have been found to have entered Canada illegally have been convicted of (i) first-degree murder, (ii) second-degree murder, (iii) manslaughter, broken down by year since 2010; and (k) how many individuals who have been previously convicted of an organized crime related offence have been convicted of (i) first-degree murder, (ii) second-degree murder, (iii) manslaughter, broken down by year since 2010?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 254--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to deportation orders issued or in effect by the government since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total number of orders issued, broken down by year; (b) what was the total number of deportation orders where the deportation was still pending as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) January 1, 2019, (v) January 1, 2020; (c) what was the total number of individuals deported, broken down by year; (d) what was the total number of individuals under the age of 18 deported, broken down by year; and (e) how many parents, guardians or adult family members of individuals in (d) were deported, broken down by year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 255--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to the Budget 2019 commitment of $1.7 billion for new funding for rural broadband infrastructure: (a) how much of that funding is projected to be spent for broadband projects in the riding of Dufferin—Caledon, broken down by project; (b) what is the breakdown of the $1.7 billion, by project; (c) what are the details of all projects in (b), including the (i) name, (ii) description, (iii) amount of federal contribution, (iv) projected completion date, (v) number of users impacted; and (d) how much of the $1.7 billion has actually been delivered to date, broken down by individual project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 256--
Mr. Kyle Seeback:
With regard to government support programs for agriculture industries impacted by changes in trade with China: (a) in 2019, what is the total amount of government funding provided to the (i) soybean industry, (ii) canola industry, (iii) beef industry; (b) what is the breakdown of all funding in (a), by (i) program, (ii) province; (c) in 2020, what is the projected total amount of government funding to the (i) soybean industry, (ii) canola industry, (iii) beef industry; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c), by (i) program, (ii) province?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 257--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to the government’s policy on firearms: which specific makes and models of weapons that are currently available on the legal market does the government consider to be “military-style assault weapons”?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 258--
Mr. John Brassard:
With regard to the awarding of the South West Asia Service Medal (SWASM), the General Campaign Star (GCS), the General Service Medal (GSM) and the South West Asia Service ribbon by the Minister of National Defence for service in Afghanistan: (a) how many have been awarded to date, broken down by award; (b) how many requests for the SWASM have yet to be fulfilled; and (c) what are years of service in which the (i) SWASM, (ii) GSM, (iii) GCS, (iv) South West Asia Service ribbon, are eligible to be awarded, broken down by award?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 259--
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the January 15, 2020, Twitter post of the National Capital Commission Rideau Canal Skateway, under the Twitter handle @NCC_Skateway, entitled “Ice Ice Maybe”: (a) what was the total video production cost involved in the planning, production, editing and posting of the video, broken down by (i) work hours of public servants used, (ii) types of expenditure; (b) what are the names and titles of any persons within the government and the National Capital Commission who were involved with the production, planning, editing and posting of the video, including any ministers or ministerial exempt staff that were involved; (c) was any overtime pay granted to public servants as a result of this video, and, if so, what were the details, broken down by (i) the names and titles of managers who signed off, (ii) the total amount and cost of overtime used; (d) what are the details of all documentation on the planning, production, editing and posting of the video, including any scripts, contracts or briefing notes; (e) what are the names and titles of all persons who signed off on and had knowledge of the production of this video; (f) was any paid advertising used to promote the video on Twitter, and, if so, what were the cost and targeting metrics used; (g) were outside services procured in the production of this video, and, if so, what was the name of the company or the persons used and the total cost of any outside contracts, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) summary of goods or services provided; (h) was an outside contract procured, and was there an open request for proposals or was it a sole-sourced contract; and (i) was a music licence sought for the use of the musical likeness of the song “Ice Ice Baby” by the artist Vanilla Ice, and, if so, what were the cost and terms of the licence?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 242--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the People’s Republic of China: how many Canadian citizens are currently (i) in detention, (ii) in detention with charge, (iii) in detention without charge, (iv) in detention without access to consular services, (v) in detention with access to consular services, (vi) in detention for reasons related to state security, (vii) subject to an exit ban, (viii) subject to an exit ban relating to a civil matter, (ix) subject to an exit ban relating to a criminal matter, (x) subject to an exit ban relating to state security, (xi) subject to prolonged interrogations, (xii) subject to interrogations without counsel?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to (i) to (xii), currently, Global Affairs Canada is aware of 123 Canadians in detention in the greater China region. This figure includes of Canadians in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It should be noted that in terms of the overall volume of arrests and detentions in the greater China region, an average of 116 cases were opened each year between 2009 and 2018. The vast majority of these cases were closed.
A Canadian is considered to be in detention when he or she is in prison, in a detention centre or in a medical facility. As a result, the number of Canadians in detention may change from day to day, due to the updating of the detention status in the database. The number of Canadians visiting the greater China region has increased steadily over the past decade, and not all arrests and detentions are reported to the department. As a result, comparisons from one year to the next should be made with caution.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 241--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to policies and procedures of Correctional Service Canada (CSC), specifically at the Joyceville Institution: (a) what policies and procedures were in place on December 1, 2019, with respect to (i) administrative segregation, (ii) disciplinary segregation, (iii) segregation units, (iv) structured intervention units, (v) any analogous practice or unit; (b) what policies and procedures were in place on December 1, 2019, with respect to protective custody and inmates whose safety has been deemed at risk, if different than those identified in (a); (c) since December 1, 2017, on which date or dates were the policies and procedures identified in (a) and (b) amended, in each case; (d) what are the details of the amendments identified in (c) in each case; (e) on which dates were the amendments identified in (c) and (d) brought into force and effect, in each case, if those dates are different than the dates identified in (c); (f) were any of the inmates who were injured on December 1, 2019, subject to any of the policies and procedures identified in (a) and (b), and, if so, what are the details in each case; (g) were any of the inmates who were injured on December 1, 2019, affected by any of the amendments identified in (c) and (d), and, if so, what are the details in each case; (h) were any of the inmates who were injured on December 1, 2019, subject to any changes in their handling, within 30 days before December 1, 2019, as a result of policy or procedural changes not identified in (c) and (d), and, if so, what are the details in each case; (i) have the policies and procedures identified in (a) and (b) been amended since December 1, 2019, and, if so, what are the details, including the date or dates, in each case; (j) have the policies and procedures identified in (f) and (g) been amended since December 1, 2019, and, if so, what are the details, including the date or dates, in each case; and (k) have the policies and procedures identified in (h) been amended since December 1, 2019, and, if so, what are the details, including the date or dates, in each case?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 243--
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (TVPA), for the period of May 23, 2018, to December 14, 2019: (a) what compliance and enforcement actions have been taken to ensure that advertisements, promotions and testimonials for (i) Vype vaping products distributed by Imperial Tobacco Canada, (ii) JUUL vaping products, (iii) Logic Compact vaping products, (iv) STLTH vaping products, (v) myBLU vaping products, (vi) Mylé vaping products are in compliance with the TVPA and its regulations; (b) if compliance and enforcement actions have been taken with respect to these products, what has been the result of those enforcement actions with respect to (i) correspondence with manufacturers or retailers, (ii) charges laid against manufacturers or retailers, (iii) products seized; and (c) have Health Canada officials made any recommendations for adjustments to (i) the TVPA and its regulations, (ii) compliance and enforcement processes, (iii) other related processes, and, if so, what?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 244--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to federal funding allocated within the constituencies of Windsor West, Essex and Windsor—Tecumseh, since the fiscal year 2014-15, and including the current fiscal year: (a) what is the total amount of government funding allocated broken down by constituency; and (b) for each constituency, what are the amounts broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 2--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the practice known as “March Madness” where expenditures are made in order to avoid having unspent funds at the end of each fiscal year: what are the specific policies, programs or incentives that are currently in place, if any, in order to discourage March Madness spending, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) Crown corporation, and (iv) other government entity?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board’s financial policy instruments apply to departments as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, or FAA. Organizations in the Government of Canada, for example Crown corporations, that are not defined in section 2 of the FAA are encouraged to adopt these policy instruments to the extent possible.
Under Treasury Board’s policy on financial management, the deputy head, as accounting officer for the department, is responsible for ensuring that departments have effective systems of internal control to mitigate risks in the following broad categories: public resources are used prudently and in an economical manner; financial management processes are effective and efficient; and relevant legislation, regulations and financial management policy instruments are being complied with.
Deputy heads are also responsible for effective multi-year expenditure plans, or multi-year financial planning, to ensure funds are spent on departmental priorities. Departments must maintain effective due diligence and ongoing monitoring of spending to ensure alignment to their mandates.
Additionally, most departments are able to carry forward a portion of unspent funds from one year to the next. This flexibility acts as a disincentive for the “March madness” spending.

Question No. 5--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the SNC-Lavalin affair: (a) how many individuals has the Privy Council Office determined are to be bound by cabinet confidence and are thus unable to speak with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP); and (b) will the Prime Minister allow the RCMP to conduct a full investigation and waive cabinet confidence for all individuals the RCMP wishes to interview, and, if not, why not?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, anyone having access to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, i.e., cabinet confidences, is required to maintain the confidentiality of that information. This includes ministers of the Crown, ministerial exempt staff and departmental officials. Before taking office as a member of the Queen’s Privy Council, every minister swears to keep matters discussed in council, including cabinet, secret. Public servants and ministerial staff are required, as a condition of employment, to keep confidential any information that comes to their knowledge in the performance of their duties pursuant to the terms and conditions of employment.
The government fully co-operated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In the course of an investigation, the RCMP is independent of the control of the government. Whether the RCMP conducts an investigation is a decision of the RCMP alone. Therefore, only the RCMP would be aware if any minister of the Crown, ministerial exempt staff or departmental official invoked their confidentiality obligations in this matter.
The RCMP was given the same access to cabinet confidences and privileged information as was provided to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 2019-0105. The decision to provide access to the RCMP was made by the Clerk of the Privy Council as custodian of cabinet confidences.
Any questions concerning activities of the RCMP should be forwarded to them directly.

Question No. 14--
Mr. Luc Berthold:
With regard to projects funded under the Canada 150 Signature Project Program: (a) what are the details of each project, including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) original project cost, (v) final project cost, (vi) original funding commitment, (vii) final funding amount provided to the project, (viii) project completion date; and (b) for each project that went over budget or required additional government funding, what was the reason for the cost overrun?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information on grants and contributions awarded by the Department of Canadian Heritage, including pan-Canadian signature projects of Canada 150, is available on the Government of Canada proactive disclosure website: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score_desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Canadian%20Heritage.
Of note, the location of a beneficiary is not representative of the scope of a project. For instance, signature activities were of a national scale and, therefore, were delivered in many communities across Canada.

Question No. 18--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the late delivery of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) by Irving Shipbuilding, which was originally scheduled for 2018 and is now scheduled for 2020: (a) what is the new anticipated delivery date; (b) why was the delivery date delayed; and (c) will the government receive a discount or will Irving Shipbuilding be required to pay a late delivery fee as a result of the delay and, if so, how much?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the new anticipated delivery date for the first Arctic and offshore patrol ship by Irving Shipbuilding is early 2020.
With regard to part (b), shipbuilding is complex, especially for a first-of-class vessel, and schedules can be challenging to predict. In the case of the first Arctic and offshore patrol ship, the originally anticipated delivery date of summer 2018 has been adjusted to early 2020. The adjustments to the schedule result from challenges associated with new production processes within a new facility on a first-of-class vessel. Irving Shipbuilding has learned lessons from the build of the first ship that are being applied to the construction of the subsequent ships. Resulting efficiencies will help the planning and achievement of anticipated dates for the delivery of the other ships in the class and the program as a whole.
With regard to part (c), although there are no late delivery fees or discounts, the shipyard is financially incentivized to deliver on schedule and on budget. The level of profit varies depending on the final cost of each ship, which is a factor of time and level of effort. Further, the contract calls for the supplier to report regularly to Canada on schedule and cost performance, for individual ships as well as for the program as a whole, which is designed to provide the government with the information required to manage the program and to update planned delivery dates as is reasonable and appropriate.

Question No. 19--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the diplomatic letter received by the government from United States officials that criticizes the level of defence spending: (a) what are the details of the letter including, (i) date on which it was received, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) summary; and (b) how many similar letters critical of the level of defence spending have been received by the government since November 4, 2015, and what are the details of all such letters, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) summary?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, positions Canada to remain strong at home, secure in North America and engaged in the world. Through this policy, Canada is making significant investments to the Canadian Armed Forces.
The United States remains Canada’s most important ally and defence partner. The Canada-U.S. bilateral defence partnership covers the full range of defence activities, from joint training exercises to personnel exchanges, strategic policy discussions and operational co-operation both at home and abroad. Canada is committed to remaining secure in North America, through our partnership with the U.S., including through the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. Canada and the U.S. are both founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and Canada remains committed to working with the U.S. and NATO allies and partners to contribute to a more stable, peaceful world.
With regard to parts (a) and (b), in processing parliamentary returns, the Government of Canada applies the principles of the Access to Information Act and certain information is withheld on the grounds that disclosing such information would be injurious to national security, defence and/or international affairs.

Question No. 20--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the new search and rescue planes, which were supposed to be delivered by Airbus on December 1, 2019: (a) why was the delivery date delayed; and (b) what is the new delivery date?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is making investments to ensure that our search and rescue crews have the necessary aircraft to support life-saving services to Canadians in need. As such, we are procuring 16 new planes that are capable of providing improved search and rescue capabilities over long ranges, in difficult weather conditions and at night.
Canada accepted the first aircraft in Spain on December 18, 2019. As outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, National Defence anticipates receiving all aircraft by 2022-23. For more information, please visit: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1721
With regard to part (a), the acceptance of the first aircraft was delayed to ensure final inspections of the aircraft could be completed and to assess the readiness of the aircraft operating manuals.
With regard to part (b), as noted above, Canada accepted the first aircraft on December 18, 2019.

Question No. 24--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to page 25 of the Liberal Party of Canada election platform which stated that “we will merge existing financial and advisory services currently scattered between several agencies into Farm Credit Canada”: (a) which specific entities and services will be merged into Farm Credit Canada (FCC); (b) how many jobs at each of the entities in (a) will be (i) eliminated, (ii) transferred to FCC; (c) what is the breakdown of jobs in (b) by location; and (d) what is the projected timeline for this merger?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is currently analyzing the platform commitment referenced by the member of Parliament for Foothills in Question No. 24 on December 5, 2019, with respect to Farm Credit Canada. An approach to implement this commitment is being developed in alignment with the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which tasks the minister to support farmers as they succeed and grow, and to lead the consolidation of existing federal financial and advisory services currently scattered among several agencies. The new entity, farm and food development Canada, will serve as a single point of service, delivering products from across government, with an expanded and enhanced mandate and additional capital lending capability.
Therefore, at this time, the following information is available with respect to the specific questions.
With respect to part (a), the scope of specific entities and services to be merged is still under analysis.
With regard to part (b), potential impacts on jobs cannot be defined at this time.
Regarding part (c), given that the potential on jobs cannot be defined at this time, a regional breakdown cannot be provided.
Finally, with respect to part (d), the projected timeline for the implementation of this commitment will depend on the results of the analysis and the implementation approach taken.

Question No. 31--
Mr. Corey Tochor:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Natural Resources Canada since January 1, 2018, what are the details of each including (i) date of funding, (ii) recipient, (iii) location, (iv) project description?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, grants and contributions, including those under $25,000, provided by Natural Resources Canada since January 1, 2018, are proactively disclosed and can be found at https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=scoredesc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Natural%20Resources%20Canada.

Question No. 32--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to Bill C-69 of the First Session of the 42nd Parliament: what specific measures passed in Bill C-69, if any, will the government remove in order to improve the economy in western Canada?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. The Impact Assessment Act protects the environment and respects indigenous rights, while strengthening the economy and encouraging investment.
The Impact Assessment Act sets out a federal process for impact assessment of major projects that considers both positive and negative environmental, economic, social and health impacts of potential projects.
To support Canada’s competitiveness and attract investment, the impact assessment system provides clear expectations and shorter legislated timelines, and aims to avoid duplication with other jurisdictions wherever possible, with the goal of one project, one review.
While our intention is not to reopen the legislation for amendments, we are open to constructive suggestions and discussions moving forward as we look to implement the law.

Question No. 35--
Mr. Warren Steinley:
With regard to the fleet of Challenger aircraft: (a) does the government have plans to purchase new aircraft to replace the fleet; (b) which aircraft is the government considering as a replacement; and (c) what is the projected cost of replacements?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is providing the Royal Canadian Air Force the equipment it needs to succeed on operations, at home and abroad.
The Challenger fleet fulfills critical roles for the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Government of Canada, including rapidly deployable medical and military transport to theatres of operation and secure and reliable transport for Canadian representatives, including the Governor General and the Prime Minister. For example, the disaster assistance response team utilized a Challenger as part of Canada’s initial response to the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines.
With respect to part (a), as outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will assess options for the continued provision of administrative and utility flight services.
With respect to part (b), following the development of operational requirements for the fleet, the Canadian Armed Forces will better understand which specific aircraft meets the parameters.
With regard to part (c), as the costs will depend on the option selected, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are unable provide detailed projected costs at this time.

Question No. 40--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to training flights for the government’s fleet of Challenger aircraft, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are all instances where the Prime Minister, ministers, or other government officials have had their “guests” fly on a training flight; and (b) for each instance in (a), what are the details of the leg of each such flight, including (i) names of guests on manifest, (ii) names of guests on each flight, if different than (i), (iii) date of flight, (iv) origin, (v) destination?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force provides flight services for official travel by the Governor General, the Prime Minister, ministers or other government officials, and their guests.
Since January 1, 2016, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not conducted any Challenger training flights with guests of the Prime Minister, ministers or government officials aboard.

Question No. 46--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to government statistics on veterans’ homelessness: what is the current number, or estimated number, of homeless veterans, and what is the breakdown by (i) municipality, and (ii) province?
Response
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as per the ESDC national shelter study, 2005 to 2016, 1.8% of shelter users, an estimated 2,400 people, reported having served in the military in 2016. This is a decrease from nearly 3,000 people, or 2.2%, in 2014.
Veterans who have used emergency shelters were more likely to be male, at 84.4%. Male shelter users tended to be older, 48 years old on average, than female shelter users, who were 38 years old on average. Nearly half, or 42.7%, of females having served in the military were under age 30, compared with 13.8% of males.
The national shelter study provides a national estimate of veteran emergency shelter use. However, reliable provincial community estimates of veteran shelter use are not available, as some provinces are under-represented in the data, and there are communities for which we do not receive data for the entirety of the shelter system.

Question No. 58--
Mr. Chris d'Entremont:
With regard to the government’s response to the need for a new sewage treatment plant in Inverness, Nova Scotia: (a) how much money has the government committed for a new sewage treatment plant; and (b) when will construction on the new plant (i) begin, (ii) be completed?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s response to the need for a new sewage treatment plant in Inverness, Nova Scotia, the federal government has not received an application for a new sewage treatment plant. Under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, projects must first be prioritized by the province before they are submitted to Infrastructure Canada for consideration.

Question No. 61--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to Destination Canada, excluding general tourism promotion: what measures, if any, is the agency taking to specifically promote Canada as a hunting, angling, and outfitting destination?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Economic Development and Minister of Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Destination Canada is not currently engaged in any marketing efforts related to hunting and outfitting. For angling, three provincial marketing organizations are currently developing a potential strategy. Upon completion of the strategy, Destination Canada will determine if it will support the provincial marketing efforts.

Question No. 63--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to the Phoenix pay system: (a) how many individuals currently owe the government money as a result of an overpayment; (b) how many individuals are currently owed money by the government as a result of being underpaid; (c) what are the median amounts for the individuals in (a) and (b); and (d) what are the highest amounts for the individuals in (a) and (b)?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), as of December 5, 2019, it is estimated that 98,249 individuals potentially owe the government money as a result of an overpayment.
As the Phoenix pay system cannot segregate true overpayments from administrative overpayments, it is not possible to accurately provide specific figures for true overpayment, which represent money owed to the government.
True overpayments are created in situations where employees receive pay to which they were not entitled. For example, this occurs when employees’ termination or leave without pay, e.g. parental leave, is entered after the pay period of their departure date, resulting in extra paycheques.
Administrative overpayments are a result of the system’s design. They have no impact on employees, given that refunds are automatically generated and netted out in the next pay period. Administrative overpayments are created to ensure employees receive the pay to which they are entitled.
For example, an acting situation is when an employee is temporarily moved from a regular position into a position at a higher classification, and therefore a higher salary rate. When the acting is entered late in Phoenix, the system pays the higher salary rate from the start of the acting period and reverses the payments that were made at the regular salary rate. The system records the inflow and outflow as an administrative overpayment. A new payment is then automatically generated, at the correct acting salary rate.
In recognition of extraordinary challenges due to the backlog, recovery of most overpayment balances will not begin until all of the employee’s outstanding pay transactions have been processed, the employee has received three consecutive accurate pays, and the employee has indicated the preferred repayment option.
In response to (b), unpaid amounts owed to employees can be related to several factors. For example, they can result from regular pay transactions such as overtime and acting pay that are not yet processed or due to errors. It is not possible to report on these figures accurately until all pay-related transactions in the backlog are processed by compensation advisers. While accurate figures are impossible to obtain regarding total underpayments, estimates can be made by departments based on methods such as amounts self-reported by employees, or amounts paid to employees through priority payments due to missing pay.
Employees who have been underpaid can request emergency salary advances or priority payments from their departments.
In response to (c), the median value of total overpayment balances is $1,383.
The government is not in a position to provide the answer regarding underpayments as the system cannot automatically calculate such transactions.
In response to (d), to protect the privacy of the affected government employee, the highest overpayment value will not be reported.
It is important to note that when PSPC reports a balance of overpayments, the figure includes true overpayments as well as administrative overpayments. True overpayments represent employees receiving pay that they are not entitled to, whereas administrative overpayments are part of the system’s design and have no impact on employees. As the Phoenix pay system cannot segregate true overpayments from administrative overpayments, it is not possible to accurately provide specific figures for true overpayment, which represent money owed to the government.
The government is not in a position to provide the answer regarding underpayments as the system cannot automatically calculate such transactions.

Question No. 65--
Ms. Marilyn Gladu:
With regard to government statistics on medical malpractice in Canada: what are the government’s statistics related to how many deaths occurred as a result of medical malpractice in each of the past 10 years, broken down by year?
Response
Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, oversight of the medical profession is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, the Canadian Institute for Health Information tracks occurrences of unintended harm during hospital stays that could have been potentially prevented by implementing known best practices, which can serve as an overall picture of safety in Canadian hospitals (data from Quebec is excluded for methodological issues).

Question No. 66--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the March 2019 leak of information related to the Supreme Court nomination process: (a) did the government investigate the leak, and, if not, why not; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, who investigated the leak; (c) was the leak referred to the RCMP and, if not, why not; and (d) is the government aware who leaked the information and, if so, who was responsible?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, any and all unauthorized disclosure of confidential and private information is taken seriously. We have been informed that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is investigating the matter. ?At this time, the Privy Council Office has no further comment?.
As stated on March 27, 2019, “We [the Prime Minister’s Office] take the integrity of our institutions seriously. The PMO would never leak who would be considered for a judicial appointment.”

Question No. 67--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to the Huawei’s participation in Canada’s 5G Networks: when will the government make a decision regarding Huawei’s participation?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government acknowledges the importance of securing 5G telecommunications systems. Cybersecurity is complex and multi-faceted, particularly when we are considering the infrastructure of the network itself. 5G technology is expected to affect not just our telecommunications sector, but also many other sectors, as it will enable innovations such as automated transportation, smart cities and remote medicine.
The government’s technical, economic, foreign policy, and security experts are working together diligently to examine the security challenges and potential threats involved in 5G technology, while recognizing the importance this technology holds in the continued development of a dynamic and digital economy. This examination will help determine the best way to maximize the benefits of this extraordinary technology for Canadians, and to minimize the associated security and privacy risks.
Canada will make appropriate decisions in due course.

Question No. 70--
Mr. Dan Albas:
With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada notifying companies about media requests received by the department, since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all instances where the department has notified a company about a media request, including (i) date, (ii) name of company, (iii) title of the individual who notified the company, (iv) title of the individual at the company who was provided with information related to the media request, (v) reason for notifying the company, (vi) summary or description of the media request, (vii) name of the media outlet the request was received from?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the department’s standard media process does not include contacting nor sharing media requests with companies. That said, Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is committed to providing Canadians, including media, with timely, factual information about our work, and in doing so, PSPC may, from time to time, verify information with companies when working on inquiries involving work contracted to them. When doing so, PSPC is careful to protect the privacy of journalists.
PSPC does not systematically track these exchanges; thus, the department is unable to answer within the allotted time.

Question No. 77--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the Clean Fuel Standard and related regulations: (a) how was the estimated emissions reduction of 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases determined; and (b) what is the margin of error of the estimated emissions reduction?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada modeled a scenario for the clean fuel standard, CFS, in the late summer/early fall of 2016 in support of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change.
The energy, emissions and economy model for Canada, E3MC, was used, which integrates the simulation of the supply, demand and price of all sources of energy and emissions and has a macroeconomic model that examines consumption, investment, production and trade decisions.
The 10% reduction in life-cycle carbon intensity of the CFS was modelled through assumed changes in combustion intensity as follows: 10% renewable content by 2030 for diesel and gasoline, including light and heavy fuel oil, in transportation, buildings and industry, including off-road transportation; 5% renewable content by 2030 for natural gas in buildings, industry and electricity generation; 90% of petroleum coke and heavy fuel oil switch to natural gas in industry, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador.
A full cost-benefit analysis with updated greenhouse gas or GHG emissions reductions projections will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the CFS regulations. This will include an estimate of emissions reductions in 2030.
In response to (b), the E3MC is not a probabilistic model and has no built-in representation of uncertainty. In turn, no margin of error for the 30 million tonnes was estimated.
In general, a variety of factors could affect the projected emissions reductions from a policy such as the CFS, including other policies that are targeting the same sources of emissions, such as carbon pricing; changes to assumptions on economic growth and world energy prices; and future developments in technologies, demographics and resources that cannot be predicted.
A full cost-benefit analysis with updated GHG emissions reductions projections will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the CFS regulations. This will include a detailed discussion of the uncertainty associated with the modelled impact of the CFS.

Question No. 80--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to carbon taxation: (a) what are the current projected annual emissions reductions resulting from carbon taxation by 2030, excluding output-based pricing system (OBPS), broken down by province; (b) what are the current projected annual emissions reductions resulting from OBPS, broken down by province; and (c) if these estimates differ from any estimate that has been published by the government since November 2015, what is the reason for the differences for all such cases?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that economy-wide carbon pollution pricing is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas or GHG emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act provided the legal framework and enabling authorities for the federal backstop carbon pollution pricing system. This system is composed of two parts: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, which is the fuel charge, and the output-based pricing system, OBPS, for industrial facilities. The OBPS creates a strong financial incentive for the least efficient facilities to reduce their emissions per unit of output and for strong performers to continue to improve.
The federal backstop system applies in any province or territory that does not have a carbon pollution pricing system that meets the federal benchmark, or in those that request it. Currently, the federal fuel charge applies in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Yukon and Nunavut. Currently, the federal OBPS applies in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan.
Carbon pollution pricing will make a significant contribution toward meeting Canada’s GHG reduction target. Carbon pollution pricing across Canada is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 50 to 60 million tonnes in 2022. As noted in the June 2019 OBPS regulatory impact analysis statement, the federal OBPS is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 3.6 megatonnes in 2022.
While pricing carbon pollution is key, it is not the only thing we are doing to fight climate change. Canada’s clean growth and climate plan includes more than 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, foster clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

Question No. 87--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the federal carbon tax: what will the carbon tax rate be for each of the next 10 years, broken down by year?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which received royal assent on June 21, 2018 as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, establishes the framework to implement the federal carbon pollution pricing system in provinces and territories that request it and in provinces and territories that do not have a system that meets the federal stringency requirements. The federal system has two components: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, which is the “fuel charge”, and a trading system for large industry, which is the “output-based pricing system” or OBPS.
The federal fuel charge applies, as of April 1, 2019, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; as of July 1, 2019, in Yukon and Nunavut; and, as of January 1, 2020, in Alberta. The government has announced its intention to no longer apply the fuel charge in New Brunswick, as of April 1, 2020, as the province proposed to implement a provincial carbon levy, as of that date, that meets the federal stringency requirements for the sources that it covers.
The federal fuel charge rates reflect a carbon pollution price of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e, as of April 1, 2019, which will rise by $10 per tonne annually until it reaches $50 per tonne in 2022.
The OBPS started applying in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and partially in Saskatchewan on January 1, 2019, and in Yukon and Nunavut on July 1, 2019. Rather than paying the fuel charge, covered facilities provide compensation for the portion of their greenhouse gas or GHG emissions that exceeds their applicable emissions limit, based on an activity-specific output-based standard. If a covered facility’s GHG emissions exceed the prescribed emissions limit in a year, it may compensate for its excess emissions in three ways. It may submit surplus credits it earned in the past, or that it has acquired from other facilities; submit other prescribed credits that it acquired; or pay an excess emissions charge. The excess emissions charge rates reflect a carbon price of $20 per tonne of CO2e in 2019, and an increase of $10 per tonne annually until it reaches $50 per tonne in 2022.
First ministers have committed to reviewing carbon pollution pricing across Canada in 2022. This will inform the path forward and help ensure that carbon pollution pricing is fair and effective across Canada.

Question No. 88--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the increased number of tax files shared between the government and the Internal Revenue Service in the United States: (a) how many files were shared in (i) 2017, (ii) 2018, (iii) 2019; and (b) what is the reason for the dramatic increase in the number of files being shared in 2019?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of 113 jurisdictions that have signed a model 1 intergovernmental agreement, IGA, with the United States of America, U.S., with respect to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, FATCA.
Under the IGA, the CRA acts as a conduit to facilitate the transmission of financial account information of “U.S. persons” from Canadian financial institutions, FIs, to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, IRS. Information regarding “U.S. persons” can be found under article 1(ee) of the IGA: https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf.
In response to part (a), the approximate numbers of records sent to the IRS under the IGA for the years in question are as follows: 600,000 in 2017, for 2016 tax year; 700,000 in 2018, for 2017 tax year; 900,000 in 2019, for 2018 tax year.
In response to part (b), with respect to the increase in records over time, the following factors are of particular relevance.
In addition to the IGA, the common reporting standard, CRS, was implemented in July 2017. As a result of this development and FIs’ desire to align their compliance requirements for these two regimes, more U.S. reportable accounts were identified. Also, when the CRS came into force, legislation was amended to require self-certification on all new accounts for both the IGA and CRS, which also resulted in an increase in records.
Furthermore, as the exchanges under the IGA operate by records and not by account holder, more than one record can exist for any person or entity. As time goes on, new accounts are opened and there are changes to account information, such as updates to an address or to produce a tax identification number, which creates additional records, even though they relate to a single account and taxpayer.

Question No. 89--
Mr. Pat Kelly:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: broken down by riding, what is the number and percentage of individuals whom the minister considers to belong to the middle class?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.
The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations: e.g., what their family situation is, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 90--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to government statistics on foreign oil imports: what was the amount of oil imported into Canada, broken down by country of origin in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018, (iv) 2019?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada’s energy sector is a key driver of the economy; provides good, well-paying jobs to hard-working Canadians; and is an overall net exporter of fuels. The government understands the importance of providing Canadians with reliable and transparent information. To that end, the Canada energy regulator or CER website provides information on oil imports, broken down by country of origin and year: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2019/03-03mprtscrdl-eng.html. As noted by the CER, imports of oil from other countries into Canada decreased by 12% in 2018. Data for 2019 is not yet available; however, figures are expected to be similar to those from 2018.

Question No. 91--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project: (a) what specific sections of the project have been completed to date; (b) which specific sections of the project are expected to be completed in 2020; and (c) what is the current expected completion date for the project?
Response
Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b),
in August 2019, Trans Mountain Corporation, TMC, resumed construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. TMC intends to construct the project in seven segments and five terminals, each of which could be referred to as a “section”. As of December 6, 2019, the date of the question, TMC has not completed construction at any individual segment or terminal. As of that date, construction at Westridge terminal is the most advanced.
In response to part (c), TMC will be providing updates on construction progress, including the completion of construction at individual segments and terminals, on a regular basis.

Question No. 103--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the transition from the National Energy Board (NEB) to the Canada Energy Regulator: (a) how many individuals or full-time equivalents (FTE) were previously employed by the NEB; (b) how many FTEs are employed by the Canada Energy Regulator; (c) what are the total costs associated with the transition; and (d) what is the itemized breakdown of the transition costs?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on August 28, 2019, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act came into force, replacing the National Energy Board Act, and the National Energy Board became the Canada Energy Regulator. The Canada Energy Regulator is a new, modern and world-class federal energy regulator with the required independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century.
With regard to (a), on July 2, 2019, there were 494.7 FTEs employed by the National Energy Board.
With regard to (b), on November 29, 2019, there were 511.6 FTEs employed by the Canada Energy Regulator.
Note that information regarding parts (a) and (b) was pulled from material prepared for other internal reporting purposes on the date specified.
With regard to (c) and (d), funding for the National Energy Board to support its transition to the Canada Energy Regulator was outlined in budget 2019. Information regarding the transition costs from the National Energy Board to the Canada Energy Regulator is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. The regulator concluded that producing and validating the information for this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 106--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the promise on page 20 of the Liberal election platform, where it says the government will be “giving $250 to every new business looking to expand their online services”: (a) what is the government’s threshold or definition of a “new” business; (b) will this be a one-time payment or an annual subsidy; and (c) how many businesses does the government project to be eligible for this payment?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion and Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to helping small businesses in digital adaptation, which is essential for small and medium-sized enterprises to grow and compete in an interconnected global economy. Please refer to the ministerial mandate letters for further information: https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters

Question No. 107--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to the establishment of a minister of state for Diversity, Inclusion and Youth to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage: how many public service employees have been transferred from the Privy Council Office (PCO) to the Department of Canadian Heritage as a result of this change, broken down by secretariat or section of the PCO?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the establishment of a Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Youth, six employees from the LGBTQ2 Secretariat and nine from the Youth Secretariat have been transferred from the Privy Council Office to the Department of Canadian Heritage as a result of this change.

Question No. 114--
Mr. Scot Davidson:
With regard to the document "Clean Fuel Standard: Proposed regulatory approach", released in June 2019: (a) what is the estimated economic impact; (b) when was the estimated economic impact first received by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change; and (c) when will the estimated economic impact be shared publicly?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in February 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada published a cost-benefit analysis framework outlining the approach for undertaking the cost-benefit analysis that will estimate the cost impacts and benefits attributable to the proposed clean fuel standard regulations. Feedback on this framework is being considered as we continue to conduct economic analysis.
With regard to (b), as the design of the clean fuel standard has not been finalized, there has been no final economic impact assessment shared with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
With regard to (c), a full cost-benefit analysis will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the draft regulations for liquid fuels.

Question No. 119--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the government’s plan for dealing with the mercury poisoning issues at the Grassy Narrows First Nation: (a) what are the government’s specific plans for the Grassy Narrows First Nation; (b) when will the promised medical treatment facility in Grassy Narrows be completed; and (c) what specific amount has been allocated for the medical treatment facility in (i) 2020, (ii) 2021, (iii) 2022, (iv) 2023?
Response
Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Canada has committed to fund the design, construction and operation of a mercury treatment facility in Grassy Narrows First Nation in response to mercury poisoning that contaminated the English-Wabigoon River system and to expand the current health facility in Grassy Narrows First Nation to provide expanded services for all its residents.
With respect to the existing health facility, Canada is providing $9 million in funding to enhance the current facility and to expand the services the current facility delivers. This expansion will include increasing primary health care delivery, including clinical spaces, medical equipment, and support for remote practice and telepractice, pharmacy and public health services and community-based programs such as mental health and wellness. The health facility and accommodations update is estimated to be 1,230.88 square metres when completed, compared to the current facility space of 347 square metres, which was built in 1989. The building design will include the ability for future expansion of other health services, i.e., a paramedic room, X-ray, additional residence units. Ongoing dialogue continues between Canada and Grassy Narrows First Nation, and it is anticipated that construction will begin in the summer of 2020 to renovate the current health facility.
Regarding the construction and operation of a mercury treatment facility, a feasibility study was completed by the community and discussions are ongoing about the design, construction and scope of health services to be delivered in conjunction with the Province of Ontario.
The proposed 22-bed centre provides space for clients impacted by mercury poisoning and includes space for additional accommodations for allied health professionals. On December 4, 2019, Minister Miller met with Chief Turtle of Grassy Narrows to discuss next steps to advance work being undertaken to support the specific health and assisted-living needs of Grassy Narrows First Nation. Canada remains committed to working in close partnership with the community to reach an agreement that will adequately meet their needs now and in the long term.
With regard to (b), the timelines for completion of the mercury treatment facility will be based on the outcomes of ongoing discussions with Grassy Narrows First Nation to ensure that the facility’s design adequately supports and complements the health services required by the community.
The Government of Canada is strongly committed to ensuring the health and well-being of first nations communities and that addressing the health needs of communities must be achieved through collaborative relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.
With regard to (c), discussions between Grassy Narrows First Nation and Canada are ongoing, and funding from 2020-23 will be allocated based on the successful conclusion of these discussions.

Question No. 120--
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Canadian Small Modular Reactor Roadmap and the note on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's website that “The Government of Canada is reviewing its recommendations and plans to develop an action plan in the near future“: will the government be releasing the plan by the end of 2020, and, if not, what is the timeline for releasing the plan?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in November 2018, the Government of Canada welcomed the release of “A Call to Action: A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors”. The report was the culmination of a 10-month pan-Canadian, stakeholder-led engagement initiative convened by Natural Resources Canada. It brought together provincial and territorial governments, utilities, industry, civil society, indigenous communities, and interested stakeholders to explore opportunities in Canada for this emerging technology.
The report found that SMRs could carry significant opportunities for Canada. It also made clear, however, that the Government of Canada cannot act alone, and included over 50 recommendations for 14 different partners and stakeholder groups.
The Government of Canada has already acted on a number of opportunities outlined in the report, including finding efficiencies and streamlining the regulatory system to mitigate barriers to innovation while always ensuring safety; working to connect nuclear industry partners with new potential end-users, including resource sectors; and collaborating with international partners to ensure that proper enabling frameworks are in place.
Partners across Canada have also been taking action on recommendations from the report, including Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC; provinces; utilities; industry; and civil society organizations.
The Government of Canada will continue to engage stakeholders, as well as local and Indigenous communities, moving forward.

Question No. 125--
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to page 36 of the Liberal election platform, which stated that “we will work with [British Columbia] to develop a responsible plan to transition from open net pen salmon farming in coastal waters to closed containment systems by 2025”: (a) what analysis has been conducted by the government with respect to (i) the current commercial viability of closed containment systems in Canada, (ii) the likely change in commercial viability of closed containment systems in Canada between now and 2025, (iii) the environmental risks and benefits associated with closed containment systems, (iv) the comparability of closed containment systems to alternative technologies that are designed to reduce potential impacts to wild salmon stocks, (v) the timeline that would be required for commercial salmon farmers to convert to closed containment, and (vi) the likely economic and social impact of requiring operators to convert to closed containment systems by 2025; (b) when were these analyses conducted; and (c) what were the results of these analyses?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as part of its commitment to an in-depth understanding of emerging technologies, in 2008, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, assessed the technical feasibility of closed containment methods for salmon aquaculture, sourcing input and information from 60 international experts. This peer review of six working papers was led by DFO through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, CSAS, which is the department's primary scientific, peer review process. In this review, land-based recirculating aquaculture systems, i.e., land-based closed containment, showed biological and technological potential; however, at that time none were producing exclusively adult Atlantic salmon, and numerous attempts to do so had resulted in failure for various reasons. Further research on the effects of high-density culture on fish welfare and disease management was recommended. The floating closed containment systems evaluated, especially rigid walled systems, presented engineering challenges that might limit use in more exposed areas; however, the potential for these to be addressed with engineering solutions was identified. The results of the 2008 report “Potential Technologies for Closed Containment Saltwater Salmon Aquaculture” are available at the following link: https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/332156.pdf.
In follow-up to the CSAS study, in 2010, the department conducted an economic analysis of a model commercial-scale closed containment facility. The study concluded that while closed containment production of adult Atlantic salmon has the potential for financial feasibility, it is very susceptible to a range of commercial variables that could quickly make it uneconomical. The results of the report, the “Feasibility Study of Closed Containment Options for the British Columbia Aquaculture Industry”, are available at the following link: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/programs-programmes/BC-aquaculture-CB-eng.htm.
As announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in December of 2018, DFO, in partnership with Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, and the Province of British Columbia, B.C., commissioned and funded a study on the state of salmon aquaculture technologies to examine the risks and opportunities of the most promising emerging technologies for salmon farming in B.C. The study explored the financial, environmental and social elements of emerging aquaculture technologies and highlighted some of the ways to incent the adoption of these new technologies, including how other countries have incented adoption. The study explored four technology options: land-based closed containment, floating closed containment, offshore technologies, and hybrid systems, which combine both land- and marine-based systems. We expect that the state of salmon aquaculture technologies study will be released soon.
The state of salmon aquaculture technology study indicated that all four production technologies have the opportunity to reduce interactions between farmed and wild salmon compared to conventional open-net pen aquaculture production, but the assessment against other environmental, economic and social elements varied. While full grow-out to market-size fish in land-based closed containment inherently has the most strengths in environmental performance with respect to reducing interactions with the marine environment and wild fish, the study also indicated that a high amount of energy is used in closed containment system construction and operation, but noted that this, as well as the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions, could be offset by locating systems closer to consumer markets and feed sources and by using low-carbon energy alternatives where possible.
The study concluded that overall, land-based closed containment and hybrid systems are the most technologically developed for application in B.C., while floating closed containment and offshore technologies still require about five to 10 years of further development and evaluation. The study indicated that land-based closed containment, though less financially proven, is the most socially acceptable technology by opponents of open-net pen aquaculture, as long as it is developed and operated in B.C. On the other hand, the study also indicated that the hybrid system is likely more profitable and the preferred choice for the majority of industry, contingent on its also operating in the B.C. coastal region, responding to some of the key economic and environmental performance criteria.
The government has not studied the commercial viability of closed containment systems in Canada between now and 2025, nor the economic and social impact of requiring operators to convert to closed containment systems by 2025.

Question No. 127--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the government’s plan to provide almost $600 million in subsidies to select media outlets: (a) what (i) objective criteria, (ii) subjective criteria will be used to determine which outlets receive funding; and (b) what weight or level of importance will be given to each of the criteria in (a)?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada introduced three tax measures in budget 2019 to strengthen Canadian journalism. These include the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019; the digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025; and a new type of qualified donee called a “registered journalism organization” for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.
The “gateway” for eligibility for all the income tax measures is for an organization to first be designated as a “qualified Canadian journalism organization”, QCJO. While designation as a QCJO does not automatically entitle organizations to specific tax measures, it is the necessary first step in determining if any of the three income tax measures could apply.
With regard to (a) and (b), note that the terms “objective criteria” and “subjective criteria” do not appear in the relevant definitions of the Income Tax Act. The relevant criteria that must be met for the tax measures listed above are set out in the act as follows: qualified Canadian journalism organization, 248(1); Canadian journalism tax credit, subsection 125.6(1); digital news subscription tax credit, subsection 118.02; and registered journalism organization, subsection 149.1(1).
Budget 2019 also announced that an independent panel of experts would be established for the purpose of providing recommendations and guidance on the administration of the legislative provisions that were introduced to support journalism. The Journalism and Written Media Independent Panel of Experts delivered its report containing recommendations on certain aspects of the legislation in July 2019.

Question No. 128--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund: what are the details of all grants awarded by the fund since January 1, 2019, including (i) name of the recipient, (ii) date on which the funding was received, (iii) amount received?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, please note that the requested information is available on the Government of Canada’s website at: https://open.canada.ca/en/search/grants
Instructions: open the link; enter in the search field, “Canada periodical fund, aid to publishers”; and select a year.

Question No. 129--
Mr. Steven Blaney:
With regard to the $600 million media bailout fund: (a) how much money has been distributed to date; (b) who were the recipients of the money; and (c) how much did each recipient in (b) receive?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government introduced three tax measures in budget 2019 to support Canadian journalism. These include the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019; the digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025; a new type of qualified donee called a “registered journalism organization” for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.
The “gateway” for eligibility for all the income tax measures is for an organization to first be designated as a “qualified Canadian journalism organization”, QCJO. While designation as a QCJO does not automatically entitle organizations to specific tax measures, it is the necessary first step in determining if any of the three income tax measures could apply.
With regard to (a), (b) and (c), the CRA does not have any data of the nature requested, as the tax measures to support journalism and the QCJO designation process have not yet commenced. As of December 6, 2019, that is, the date of this question, one of the three tax measures to support journalism has come into force and the CRA has not publicly released its application form and guidance, which are necessary for organizations to be able to apply for and be designated for QCJO status.

Question No. 132--
Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the current ongoing construction taking place on the lawn of Parliament Hill between Centre Block and the Centennial Flame: (a) what is the specific purpose of the construction; (b) when will the construction be completed and the entire lawn be open to the public again; (c) what is the estimated cost associated with the construction; and (d) what are the details of all contracts signed in relation to the construction, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) file number?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the current ongoing construction taking place on the lawn of Parliament Hill between Centre Block and the Centennial Flame is related to the Centre Block rehabilitation program, which includes excavating the northern portion of the lawn in order to construct phase II of the Visitor Welcome Centre. The project is being completed as part of the long term vision and plan, a multi-year strategy for restoring and modernizing Canada’s historic parliamentary precinct.
With regard to (b), the front lawn will be reinstated following the restoration of the Centre Block. The timelines for construction are in development and will be available in 2020 once a detailed building condition assessment program and schematic design are complete.
PSPC, in concert with its government and parliamentary partners, is committed to maintaining a positive experience on Parliament Hill while construction is taking place.
With regard to (c), critical information on the state of the Centre Block and its future functional requirements is still under assessment. The scope, schedule and budget will be available in 2020 once the detailed condition assessment is complete and schematic design is sufficiently advanced.
With regard to (d), the Centre Block rehabilitation program is utilizing a construction management contracting model to deliver the construction component of the project. Under this model, the construction manager competitively tenders and oversees all aspects of the construction execution. Contracting opportunities are posted by the construction manager on MERX. This construction management contract was competitively tendered and awarded to a joint venture comprised of PCL/Ellis Don in the spring of 2017.
The link to the construction management contract can be found on the Government of Canada buyandsell.gc.ca website: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-FP-001-68514?order=title&sort=asc#title
With regard to (d)(i), the vendor is PCL/EllisDon in joint venture. With regard to (d)(ii), the amount is $598,000,000. With regard to (d)(iii), the contract was awarded in April 2017 and is valid until March 2029. With regard to (d)(iv), the goods and services consist of construction management services. With regard to (d)(v), the buy and sell reference number is PW-$FP-001-68514, and the buy and sell solicitation number is EP748-151886/D

Question No. 133--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to the government's treatment of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman: what are the total expenditures incurred to date for the investigation and prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman, broken down by type of expenditures?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown can only reveal the total legal cost related to this case. Based upon the hours recorded, the total amount of legal costs incurred amounts to approximately $1,425,389.68, as of December 9, 2019.

Question No. 135--
Mr. Erin O'Toole:
With regard to international summits, meetings, and events held in Canada since January 1, 2016: (a) how often were RCMP members seconded from local detachments to perform duties related to an international summit, meeting or event; (b) of the cases referred to in (a), how often were members seconded from RCMP detachments with 10 or fewer members; (c) of the cases referred to in (a), how often were more than 50% of the members in a detachment seconded; and (d) of the cases referred to in (a), how often were more than 25% of the members in a detachment seconded?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP’s protective policing program is mandated to ensure the safety and security of government-led events, as prescribed by Canadian legislation, directives and international conventions. This includes, for example, the 2016 North American leaders summit in Ottawa, Ontario, and the recent 2018 G7 leaders summit in La Malbaie, Quebec.
To execute this mandate and ensure the proper functioning of a government-led event, the RCMP deploys resources and implements security measures commensurate to the RCMP’s assessment of the threat and risk environment for that particular unique event.
RCMP protective policing personnel, which are located in multiple divisions across the country, will be deployed in support of a government-led event to ensure the appropriate security posture. In some cases, divisional resources and personnel from within other areas of the RCMP, i.e., federal policing or vontract, will also be deployed, if required.
For operational reasons, the RCMP cannot disclose detailed information that may expose security postures adopted to ensure the security of government-led events, including the number of resources deployed from divisions.

Question No. 138--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to the government’s response to the concern of small communities that they will be unable to meet the government’s wastewater regulations by 2020: (a) will the government fine small communities who are unable to meet the regulations; (b) will the government provide urgent funding to the communities in order to meet these new regulations; and (c) what remedies will be available to small communities that do not have the means to upgrade their facilities in order to meet the regulations?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has an obligation to enforce environmental laws and regulations and takes its responsibilities seriously. Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, is responsible for administering and enforcing the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish, and the wastewater systems effluent regulations, WSER, made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, FA.
ECCC aims to enforce the WSER in a manner that is fair, consistent and predictable.
If ECCC enforcement officers become aware of an alleged violation they may take appropriate action in accordance with the compliance and enforcement policy for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. This ECCC policy states that if there is evidence of a contravention, officers can take a number of different enforcement measures considering factors set out in this policy, including issuing warnings or directions. Warnings are administrative documents, which brings an alleged violation to the attention of an alleged violator in order to promote any necessary action to come back into compliance with the WSER. Directions are legal documents in which the enforcement officer orders the alleged offender to come back into compliance with the WSER. Warnings and directions are enforcement options used before prosecution, and do not involve monetary fines.
Further, according to the Fisheries Act, FA, no one can be convicted if the person establishes that they exercised due diligence or reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would render the person’s conduct innocent.
With more serious alleged offences, officers can conduct investigations to collect evidence for the purposes of prosecuting in court. The evidence collected is sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. A decision to prosecute an alleged offender is the sole discretion of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Once the person has been charged, an option that does not involve court proceedings is “alternative measures”. Alternative measures are agreements negotiated with the accused by the Attorney General of Canada, in consultation with the Minister of the Environment. It will contain measures that the accused must take in order to restore compliance.
Where there are no alternative measures, a person who is found guilty of contravening the WSER following court proceedings is liable to a fine the amount of which will differ greatly depending on whether the offender is an individual, a small revenue corporation or another person and whether it is their first offence.
These regulations do not fall under ECCC legislation, which allows for ticketing or administrative monetary penalties, the contraventions regulations and the administrative monetary penalties regulations, for violation to certain other ECCC acts or regulations.
In response to (b), Environment and Climate Change Canada will not provide any funding related to Q-138.
In response to (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have any remedies related to Q-138.

Question No. 139--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
With regard to the government funding transfers to the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIB): (a) what is the total amount of money transferred to date; (b) what are the details of each transfer, including (i) date, (ii) amount; (c) how many Canadian infrastructure projects have been funded as a result of the money transferred in (a), and what are the details of all such projects, including the amount received from the AIB; and (d) how many jobs in Canada have been directly created as a result of the funding in (a)?
Response
Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), Canada became a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, through the purchase of shares valued at $199.1 million U.S. To date, $79.64 million U.S. has been transferred.
In response to parts (b)(i) and (ii), the dates and amounts are March 8, 2018, $39.82 million U.S., and March 11, 2019, $39.82 million U.S.
In response to part (c), multilateral development banks, MDBs, such as the World Bank and AIIB are organizations that provide development resources in the form of financing, grants and technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries, for the purposes of social and economic development. Canada does not borrow from MDBs, and no Canadian infrastructure project has been funded by the AIIB.
In response to part (d), the MDBs provide financing and other types of assistance to projects in developing countries. As such, no funding has been provided to Canada. However, Canadian companies can engage in AIIB projects and core functions, e.g., Hatch and TD Securities.

Question No. 140--
Ms. Rachael Harder:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: broken down by riding, what is the number and percentage of individuals whom the minister considers to be middle class?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.
The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly based on Canadians’ specific situations, e.g., what their family situation is, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 143--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the over $56,000 owed by the RCMP to the managers of the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas: (a) what is the exact amount owed; (b) why did the government not sign a contract for the expenditures prior to incurring them; (c) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures owed to the managers of the island; (d) when will this outstanding amount be paid; and (e) as this vacation was found by the Conflict of lnterest and Ethics Commissioner to be a violation of the law, will the government require the Prime Minister to pay this outstanding amount from personal funds?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), there is no outstanding amount owed.
In response to (b), the RCMP is working to improve operational planning practices with the goal of ensuring adherence to Government of Canada policies.
In response to (c), for operational reasons, the RCMP cannot disclose detailed information that may expose security postures adopted to ensure the safety and security of any given principal and/or event.
In response to (d) and (e), the amount has been paid.

Question No. 146--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to government support for the workers in New Brunswick impacted by the closing of the Glencore Smelter in Belledune: what specific measures, if any, is the government taking to support the affected workers?
Response
Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the November 13, 2019 announcement, Service Canada has been working closely with the New Brunswick, NB, Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour, PETL, to coordinate efforts and provide support to the workers impacted by the closing of the Glencore smelter in Belledune. The area director for NB has contacted the MP’s office to inform them that Service Canada is supporting employees and that the employer can contact them if they have any questions.
Service Canada attended information fairs for unionized and non-unionized employees on December 2, 2019, in Belledune, New Brunswick, and December 3, 2019, in Beresford, New Brunswick. This event was a collaboration between the provincial department of PETL and the employer, Glencore. Employees in attendance had the opportunity to ask questions and Service Canada took note of them in order to better address their concerns about employment insurance, EI.
Service Canada and NB PETL held joint information sessions on December 11 and 12, 2019. Eight sessions were held for unionized employees and 82 people attended. The sessions provided general information on EI and other Government of Canada services and programs. A session for non-unionized employees was scheduled for December 13, 2019, but had to be cancelled because these employees are still working. It has been rescheduled to January 2020.

Question No. 149--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to Canada’s vote of “yes” on the United Nations General Assembly Agenda Item 69 “Right of peoples to self-determination”: what is the government’s rationale for Canada to change its previous vote of “no” on this annual agenda item?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
Canada is strongly committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. Canada’s vote today is a reflection of this long-standing commitment.
Canada voted in support of this resolution as it addresses the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Canada strongly supports the international consensus on a two-state solution, so that both sides can have a secure and prosperous future.
Canada would also like to strongly reiterate our stated position and concern that there are too many resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation which unfairly singles out Israel for criticism. Canada would prefer to see the international community channel its efforts towards helping both sides to resume direct negotiations and work towards achieving a lasting peace for both peoples.

Question No. 150--
Mr. Peter Kent:
With regard to the government voting in favour of the anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations on November 19, 2019: (a) why did the government vote in favour of the Palestinian resolution, which was sponsored by North Korea, Egypt, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe; (b) when did the government decide that it was going to vote in that manner; and (c) did the government notify any organization of its intention to vote in that manner prior to November 19, 2019, and, if so, which organizations?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to parts (a) to (c), Canada is strongly committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. Canada’s vote today is a reflection of this long-standing commitment.
Canada voted in support of this resolution as it addresses the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Canada strongly supports the international consensus on a two-state solution, so that both sides can have a secure and prosperous future.
Canada would also like to strongly reiterate our stated position and concern that there are too many resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation which unfairly singles out Israel for criticism. Canada would prefer to see the international community channel its efforts towards helping both sides to resume direct negotiations and work towards achieving a lasting peace for both peoples.

Question No. 151--
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to the SNC-Lavalin affair: (a) what are the details of all correspondence or other communication received by the government from the RCMP on this matter, including (i) dates, (ii) senders, (iii) recipients, (iv) titles or subject matters, (v) summary of content, (vi) forms (email, telephone call, etc.); and (b) broken down by each instance in (a), what were the details of the government’s responses, including (i) who responded, (ii) dates of response, (iii) summary of responses, (iv) forms?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no records were found of correspondence or other communication from the RCMP to the government on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Question No. 157--
Mr. Richard Bragdon:
With regard to the government’s election platform commitment to support the Newfoundland-Labrador fixed transportation link: (a) does the government have any specific timeline for this project, and, if so, what is the timeline; and (b) has the government allocated or budgeted any money for this project, and, if so, how much?
Response
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s election platform commitment to support the NewfoundlandLabrador fixed transportation link, the Government of Canada will work in collaboration with the provincial government towards the development of a proposal.
Further discussions are required before (a) a timeline and (b) budget and allocation of funds can be specified.

Question No. 158--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the finding of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in the February 2019 report that some veterans would be “greatly disadvantaged” by the new regime: (a) what specific action, if any, has the Minister of Veterans Affairs taken since the report was released to address the concerns of the PBO; and (b) if no specific action has been taken by the minister, (i) when will action be taken, (ii) why not?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Pension for Life is a combination of benefits that provides recognition, income support and stability to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who experience a service-related illness or injury. As of April 1, 2019, over 80,000 veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members were efficiently transitioned to the new suite of benefits.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report concluded that most veterans will receive lifetime payments that are between 6% and 24% higher under Pension for Life than they would have received under the previous regime, despite the significant increases in financial supports made to the new Veterans Charter through budget 2016.
As directed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Canada is thoroughly reviewing the implementation of Pension for Life and may recommend changes, where needed, to improve the outcomes and experiences of veterans and their families.

Question No. 159--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the backlog of veterans waiting for their disability benefits: (a) what is the current status of the backlog; (b) how many veterans are still waiting for their compensation; (c) how many veterans receive less compensation under the new pension program as opposed to the previous program; and (d) what is the government doing to increase compensation for veterans who are now receiving less compensation under the new pension program?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), Veterans Affairs Canada defines “backlog” as applications that have not been completed within the service standard of 16 weeks.
As of December 9, 2019, there are 19,663 backlogged disability benefit applications, consisting of 16,192 distinct clients in the backlog. A client could have more than one disability application. For example, a client could have a first application for hearing loss and then a reassessment application for cervical disc disease. A distinct client count represents the number of unique clients counted in the pending and backlog groups, regardless of how many applications they have. There has been a 90% increase in first applications since 2015.
With regard to the total number of veterans with pending disability benefit applications, including those that have not exceeded the service standard, there are 33,618 distinct clients who have a pending disability benefit application and are in the process of receiving a decision regarding compensation.
Veterans Affairs Canada continues to work to improve service delivery and ensure every Canadian veteran receives the benefits they deserve in a timely manner.
With regard to (c) and (d), Pension for Life is a combination of benefits that provides recognition, income support and stability to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who experience a service-related illness or injury. As of April 1, 2019, over 80,000 veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members were efficiently transitioned to the new suite of benefits.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report concluded that most veterans will receive lifetime payments that are between 6% and 24% higher under Pension for Life than they would have received under the previous regime, despite the significant increases in financial supports made to the new Veterans Charter through budget 2016.
As directed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Canada is thoroughly reviewing the implementation of Pension for Life and may recommend changes, where needed, to improve the outcomes and experiences of veterans and their families.

Question No. 160--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to government expenditures related to Bruyea v Canada (Veteran Affairs): (a) what is the total of all expenditures incurred to date in relation to the case; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures, including estimated staff time?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested in part (b) is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown can only reveal the total legal cost of all government expenditures related to Bruyea v Canada (Veterans Affairs). Based upon the hours recorded, the total amount of legal costs incurred amounts to approximately $183,551.04 as of December 9, 2019.

Question No. 163--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the First Nations Child and Family Services Program: (a) how much money has been spent in total on legal proceedings pursuant or related to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal since 2007; (b) how much money has been spent in total on legal proceedings pursuant or related to the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concerning the program (2016 CHRT 2), including but not limited to appeals, motions to stay, hearings regarding compliance orders or preparatory work for the same, since January 26, 2016; (c) in reference to the total costs in (b), what are the total costs broken down by (i) the CHRT, (ii) the Federal Court?
Response
Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the information requested in parts (b) and (c) is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown can only reveal the total cost of legal proceedings pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the CHRT, for the period starting in 2007 and up to December 9, 2019. Based upon the hours recorded, the total legal costs incurred amount to approximately $5,261,009.14 as of December 9, 2019.

Question No. 173--
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS): (a) where is the information on NSS contract awards being published; (b) what is the updated schedule for the Canadian Surface Combatant project; (c) what is the value of the contracts awarded to Irving Shipbuilding for the Canadian Surface Combatant to date; (d) what is the value of the contracts awarded to Irving Shipbuilding’s subcontractors for the Canadian Surface Combatant to date; and (e) have any licence fees been paid out under the Canadian Surface Combatant project, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) dates, (ii) amounts, (iii) vendor, (iv) description or summary of licence fee agreement?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), government contracts are posted on the Buy and Sell website at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/. This includes contracts under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the NSS, with the exception of those subject to the provisions of the national security exemption, which are not posted publicly.
With regard to part (b), construction of the Canadian surface combatant is currently scheduled to begin in the early 2020s. Additional information on the NSS and its specific projects is available on the following Government of Canada web pages: https://www.canada.ca/en/ public-services-procurement/news/2019/02/ government-of-canada-selects-design- for-canadian-surface-combatants.html , https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp /mer-sea/sncn-nss/navcom-surfcom-eng.html and https://www.canada.ca/en/ department-national-defence/ services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html .
With regard to part (c), the current total value of the contracts issued to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., or ISI, for the Canadian surface combatant, CSC, project, including ancillary contracts and the definition contract, is $521.8 million including taxes.
With regard to part (d), the value of subcontracts issued by ISI for work on the CSC project is included in the total value of the contracts in part (c) above and is confidential commercial information that is not released separately.
With regard to part (e), the competitive CSC request for proposals for the selection of the starting point design and the design team included the provision for bidders to include a cost for the license for the starting point design. The cost of the license for the starting point design is part of the cost of the CSC definition subcontract issued by ISI for work on the CSC definition contract. It is included in the total value of the CSC definition contract and is confidential commercial information that is not released separately.

Question No. 175--
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:
With regard to the Havana syndrome, where Canadian diplomatic employees in Cuba suffered various health symptoms in 2017 and 2018: (a) has the government determined the cause of the health issues, and, if so, what are they; (b) what specific efforts were made by the government to determine the cause of the health issues; and (c) what specific new measures, if any, has the government taken to ensure the health and safety of diplomatic employees and other individuals at the Embassy of Canada in Cuba?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers. With regard to parts (a) to (c), the health, safety and security of our diplomats serving abroad and their families is a top priority for the Canadian government.
Global Affairs Canada continues to investigate the potential causes of the unusual health symptoms; a conclusive cause has not been identified. The Government of Canada has sent RCMP investigators and technical experts, Health Canada occupational health professionals, and representatives from Global Affairs Canada to address health concerns and to further the investigation.
Cuba has co-operated with Canada since the beginning of our investigation, including by working jointly with the RCMP investigators.
For privacy, security and legal reasons, Global Affairs Canada cannot comment on the specifics of the ongoing investigations or individual cases, nor on specific security measures.

Question No. 178--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to page 30 of the Liberal election platform which promised to plant two billion trees over 10 years as part of a broader initiative to conserve and restore forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, wetlands and coastal areas: (a) what proportion of the estimated 30 Mt reduction in carbon emissions can be attributable to the tree planting component of the program; (b) what proportion of the estimated $3 billion cost of this program will go to the tree planting component of the program; (c) will the two billion trees be incremental to the reforestation activities that already take place in Canada; (d) what proportion of these trees are expected to be planted in urban and suburban areas; and (e) for those trees planted outside of urban and suburban areas, will the government convert any areas to a forested condition where the current or climax condition is unforested?
Response
Hon. Seamus O’Regan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), natural climate solutions like planting trees can help get Canada significantly closer to reaching its emissions reduction targets while creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians. The government is committed to working with experts to design a suite of natural climate solutions that will reduce emissions by an estimated 30 megatonnes by 2030. Canada’s managed forests and forest products sequestered 26 megatonnes of CO2 in 2017, not including emissions from natural disturbances. The amount of additional sequestration, or reductions in carbon emissions, realized specifically by the proposed tree planting component of the commitment will be determined based on the tree species, region of planting, current land use and site conditions, and the number of trees planted per year.
The government is committed to working with key partners, including provinces, territories and indigenous communities, as this initiative moves forward.
With regard to (b), the tree planting initiative is part of a broader commitment to fund natural climate solutions. The proportion of the estimated budget to be allocated to tree planting is currently being explored.
With regard to (c), the two billion trees will be incremental to the reforestation activities that already take place in Canada.
With regard to (d), the proportion of trees expected to be planted in urban and suburban areas is still being considered, but planting will take place in these areas. The government is committed to working with key partners, including provinces, territories and indigenous communities, as this initiative moves forward. In addition to operationalizing the plan to plant two billion trees, the mandate letter for the Minister of Natural Resources specifically mentions support for cities to expand and diversify their urban forests, including support for research and funding.
(e) Natural Resources Canada and other federal departments are considering both reforestation and afforestation as critical elements of the tree planting initiative. Afforestation efforts in areas outside of urban and suburban areas will be determined through stakeholder engagement and discussions. Typically, afforestation would occur in areas that could normally hold forest, but currently do not.

Question No. 179--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski:
With regard to Governor in Council appointments: (a) were each of the following appointments made in a manner consistent with the caretaker convention, (i) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1331 (October 15, 2019), (ii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1332 (October 15, 2019), (iii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1333 (October 15, 2019), (iv) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1335 (October 21, 2019), (v) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1336 (October 21, 2019), (vi) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1337 (November 1, 2019), (vii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1338 (November 12, 2019), (viii) Order in Council P.C. 2019-1339 (November 19, 2019); and (b) for each appointment referred to in (a) made in a manner consistent with the caretaker convention, why was its making consistent with the convention; (c) for each appointment referred to in (a) not made in a manner consistent with the caretaker convention, why was the appointment made?
Response
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Public Service Renewal) and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all these appointments were of public servants to heads of mission positions, a routine part of the normal operations of government. Given the routine and non-controversial nature of these appointments, moving forward with them during the caretaker period was entirely consistent with the “Guidelines on the conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, exempt staff and public servants during an election”, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/ services/publications/guidelines-conduct- ministers-state-exempt-staff-public-servants-election.html .

Question No. 183--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to the federal carbon tax: (a) what is the (i) number of farmer, (ii) percentage of farmers who have received the Fuel Charge Exemption Certificate for Farmers, broken down by province; (b) what is the total amount of federal advertising expenditures aimed at ensuring farmers know about the requirement to fill out the forms required to get the certificate; and (c) what specific remedies are available to Alberta farmers who have not received their Exemption Certificates by January 1, 2020?
Response
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, does not have information concerning the administration of the federal carbon tax.

Question No. 194--
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the prison needle exchange in facilities run by Correctional Service Canada (CSC): (a) how many needles were distributed to inmates in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, boken down by correctional institution; (b) of the needles distributed, how many went missing or were not returned to CSC, broken down by correctional institution; (c) what specific procedures are in place to ensure the safety of correctional officers; and (d) how many incidents have taken place to date where (i) officers or staff, (ii) other inmates were “stuck” or injured by a needle from the program?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i) and (a)(ii), since the start of the prison needle exchange program, the PNEP, in June 2018, 715 needles have been distributed. This number represents the number of needles distributed from the start of the PNEP program to the time of analysis, not the number of inmates who have received a PNEP kit. In 2018, 35 needles were distributed, 33 in the Atlantic Institution and two in the Grand Valley Institution for women. In 2019, 680 needles were distributed, 620 in the Atlantic Institution, three in Edmonton Institution for Women, and 57 in the Grand Valley Institution for women.
With regard to (b), all PNEP needles distributed were returned for a 100% return rate. In two instances at Atlantic Institution, a PNEP needle was not stored in the approved location; CSC staff seized the needles in question, and the participants were temporarily suspended from the program in order to be reassessed.
With regard to (c), specific procedures to ensure the safety of correctional officers and other offenders areas follows. First is threat risk assessment, or TRA. The application process includes a TRA, conducted by operations, in order to review pertinent security information to determine the potential risks from supporting the applicant’s participation in the program. The TRA model is similar to the one currently in place for offenders who use other needles and syringes, such as EpiPens and those for diabetic insulin use. This model has proven to be safe and effective. Second is kit monitoring. Needles are provided in kits in a clear plastic storage container. Procedures are in place to ensure the kit and its contents are secure and accounted for through regular monitoring, generally two times per day, during routine “stand to” counts. The third procedure is for needle exchanges: When participants wish to exchange their needles, they must return the original CSC-issued needle/syringe unit with the safety glide cap properly in place to Health Services. A nurse ensures the needle is in place before it is discarded into a biohazard sharps waste container by the participant. Next are procedures for cell searching. Procedures have been established for the routine searching of a participant’s cell whereby the kit is secured before an officer or dog proceeds with a search. Finally, there are procedures on violation of terms. Participants sign a contract, and in the event the participant does not follow the institutional procedures and the agreed-upon terms and conditions of the contract for participation in the PNEP, the inmate may be suspended temporarily or removed from the program, and a new TRA may be required.
With regard to (d)(i) and (d)(ii), no incidents have been reported of officers or other staff being “stuck” or injured by a needle from the PNEP. No incidents have been reported of other inmates being “stuck” or injured by a needle from the PNEP.

Question No. 200--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage since January 1, 2018: what are the details of each, including (i) dates of funding, (ii) recipients, (iii) locations, (iv) project descriptions?
Response
Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, information on grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage, PCH, from January 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, is available on the Government of Canada proactive disclosure website at https://rechercher.ouvert.canada.ca/fr/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=&gc-search-orgs=Patrimoine%20canadien&gc-search-year=2018|2019&gc-search-agreement-range=(b)%20moins%20de%2010%20000%20%24|(c)%20de%2010%20000%20%24%20%C3%A0%2025%20000%20%24 .
Information on grants and contributions under $25,000 provided by Canadian Heritage, PCH, from October 1, 2019, to December 1, 2019, will be released via proactive disclosure by January 31, 2020.

Question No. 204--
Mr. Doug Shipley:
With regard to individuals working full-time, part-time, on contract, or on a casual basis at Global Affairs Canada’s offices abroad, including local and third-country cooperants and advisors, as of December 1, 2019: (a) how many such individuals were required to have (i) a secret security clearance or above, (ii) a confidential security clearance, (iii) no security clearance; and (b) how many individuals were working at Global Affairs Canada’s offices abroad, as of December 1, 2019, either without the required security clearance or pending the issuance of a security clearance?
Response
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of International Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a), all Canadian-based staff, CBS, and there are approximately 1,304 at our missions abroad, have a top secret clearance. All locally engaged staff, LES, and there are approximately 3,986, have a reliability status.
Global Affairs Canada does not grant confidential security clearances.
All staff requiring clearances are compliant with Global Affairs Canada security requirements. Persons without security status require escort.
With regard to part (b), all CBS and LES have the clearances necessary to perform their duties. Top secret clearance is the minimum for CBS, while LES are cleared at the reliability status level. Some LES may qualify for and be granted a secret clearance, but only under exceptional circumstances.

Question No. 206--
Mrs. Alice Wong:
With regard to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity: (a) what percentage of seniors does the minister consider to be middle class; (b) what percentage of seniors does the minister consider to be (i) of an income or means lower than middle class, (ii) of an income or means higher than middle class; and (c) how does the percentage in (a) compare to the percentage of Canadians as a whole, whom the minister considers to be middle class?
Response
Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government’s focus on middle-class prosperity reflects its priority on policies that grow the economy and benefit a very broad group of Canadians.
The income required to attain a middle-class lifestyle can vary greatly, depending on Canadians’ specific situations such as their family situation, whether they face child care expenses or whether they live in large cities where housing tends to be more expensive. Canada has no official statistical measure of what constitutes the middle class.

Question No. 208--
Mr. David Sweet:
With regard to the government’s list of terrorist organizations: (a) why has the government not yet listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as a terrorist organization; and (b) does the government consider the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be a terrorist organization?
Response
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government. We are working with like-minded countries to ensure that Iran is held to account for its support of terrorism.
As we have long said, Canada has already taken a number of actions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC.
We continue to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force as a terrorist entity, and we also continue to impose sanctions on Iran and the IRGC, targeting its branches as well as senior-level members of its leadership.
The listing of entities is an ongoing process, and government officials continue to assess all groups and monitor new developments. Last year we added three additional Iran-backed groups to the Criminal Code list as terrorist entities.
We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world

Question No. 212--
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to rail safety: (a) how many railway incidents have occurred as a result of sleep-related fatigue issues since November 4, 2015; (b) what are the details of all such incidents, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) summary of incident, (iv) damage caused, if applicable; (c) what specific measures has the government implemented since November 4, 2015, aimed at preventing railway incidents resulting from employee fatigue; and (d) what is the current minimum turnaround time between shifts for (i) conductors, (ii) railway yard workers, (iii) other railway workers?
Response
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, TSB, is the independent agency that collects and analyzes data related to railway incidents in Canada and investigates the cause and factors contributing to their occurrence. As such, they are the appropriate authority to respond to this question.
With regard to part (b), as the authority responsible for collecting data on railway incidents in Canada, the TSB, is the appropriate party to respond to this question.
With regard to part (c), a number of specific measures have been implemented since November 4, 2015, which are aimed at preventing railway incidents resulting from employee fatigue. One is safety management system regulations. New regulations prescribing the implementation of a safety management system were published in 2015. They included specific requirements for railways to follow in terms of scheduling shifts based on the principles of fatigue science.
Another is a notice of intent, or NOI. In November 2017, Transport Canada, TC, published an NOI that described a fatigue strategy. The strategy included a review of fatigue risk management systems, FRMS, and research into key positions in the rail industry and their sensitivity to fatigue. The NOI also stated TC’s intention to initiate amendments to the Work/Rest Rules for Railway Operating Employees, or WRR, and the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015, and, if necessary, to pursue the development of new regulations to address fatigue in the rail industry.
Another measure was a Fatigue in Transportation forum. A Fatigue in Transportation symposium was held in Montreal in the summer of 2018. The forum, which brought together over 200 participants, included speakers from academia, government and the transportation industry to build knowledge and promote increased awareness of fatigue in the transportation sector.
Another measure was updated work/rest rules. The Minister of Transport issued a ministerial order in December 2018 that required industry to update the existing work/rest rules to reflect the latest principles in fatigue science. This includes revisions to maximum duty lengths, minimum rest periods, advance notice of schedules, maximum cumulative duty times and the development of fatigue management plans. Transport Canada received a revised proposed working draft of these rules on December 16, 2019, and the industry must conduct a consultation with its unions. Submission by industry of a new proposal is expected for consideration and approval in early 2020.
With regard to part (d), conductors and locomotive engineers who operate in freight service/yard service are subject to the provisions of the current work/rest rules. These rules do not contain a minimum turnaround time or mandated time off duty between shifts unless the employee has worked more than 10 hours. If the employee has worked in excess of 10 hours and is away from the home terminal, the employee must have six hours off duty. If they are at the home terminal, they must have eight hours off duty. Usually employees who are on regularly scheduled assignments, yard service, do not receive calls for work.
Railway yard workers are also subject to these provisions but are often assigned a regular schedule, obviating the need for a minimum turnaround time.
Other railway workers, which is interpreted to mean non-operating employees, are subject to part III of the Canada Labour Code, and their collective agreements where applicable. Under section.169.2 (1) of part III of the Canada Labour Code, employees are eligible for a minimum rest period of at least eight consecutive hours between work periods or shifts.

Question No. 216--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Statutes of Canada 2019, Chapter 14 (An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence), over the development, drafting and legislative process for this legislation: (a) was any consideration given by the government as to how this legislation would affect the International Joint Commission’s Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Plan 2014; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, were any briefing notes written detailing these considerations, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) date written, (v) department internal tracking number; (c) was any consideration given by the government as to how this legislation would affect water levels and shoreline properties in Canada; and (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, were any briefing notes written detailing these considerations, broken down by (i) title, (ii) subject, (iii) author, (iv) date written, (v) department internal tracking number?
Response
Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), in developing Bill C-68 to modernize the Fisheries Act, including restoring lost protections to fish and fish habitat, extensive consultations were undertaken with indigenous peoples, other levels of government, industry and non-government organizations, and the public at large. While there was no direct consideration of the International Joint Commission’s plan, the modernized act draws on views and perspectives of many partners and stakeholders to provide a wide range of tools to support the proper management of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.
In response to (b), for DFO, this is notot applicable, given the reply to (a).
In response to (c), the purpose set out in Bill C-68 was to provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including preventing pollution. The powers, authorities and tools contained in the modernized act in and of themselves do not impact water levels and shoreline properties in Canada. Therefore, these impacts were not considered in developing Bill C-68.
The rationale is that prior to the amendments in Bill C-68 being adopted, the Fisheries Act included long-standing provisions for the management of water flow in relation to existing obstructions, such as dams or other barriers in a water course. These are for the purpose of the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, such as to provide for fish passage around such barriers by means of fish ladders, or to provide for the flows downstream of a barrier sufficient to protect fish and their habitat. These authorities were previously found in section 20 of the Fisheries Act as it read immediately prior to royal assent of Bill C-68, and with the coming into force of all the amendments provided for in Bill C-68, they are now found in section 34.3.
As the result of Bill C-68, section 34.3 was amended to establish subsection 34.3(7), that provides for the minister to make regulations respecting the flow of water that is to be maintained to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat in relation to existing obstructions. Subsection 34.3(7) is enabling only and has no force or effect until such time as regulations may be made. Any future regulations would necessarily include broad consultation with affected partners and stakeholders.
In response to (d), for DFO this is not applicable, given the reply to (c).

Question No. 225--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to the 16 CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchased by the government: (a) what are the operational limitations of the aircraft; and (b) what specific limitations were discovered during operational testing in 2019?
Response
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is making investments to ensure that our search and rescue crews have the necessary aircraft to support life-saving services to Canadians in need. As such, we are procuring 16 new planes that are capable of providing improved search and rescue capabilities over long ranges, in difficult weather conditions and at night.
Canada accepted the first aircraft in Spain on December 18, 2019. As outlined in the defence capabilities blueprint, National Defence anticipates receiving all aircraft by 2022-23.
Details can be found at http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1721
With regard to operational limitations, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not yet commenced the initial testing and evaluation of the aircraft. The initial operational testing period for the CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft is expected to be conducted in the first half of 2020.

Question No. 231--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the government’s profit policy as related to shipbuilding: (a) what risk assessment or mitigation does the government conduct related to guaranteed contracts for the Arctic off-shore patrol ships (AOPS), Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), and Halifax Class Frigates; (b) what is the profit range offered to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) for its work on the AOPS, CSC and Halifax Class Frigates; (c) what is the total profit offered for guaranteed work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, whereby there are cost plus contracts; (d) what are the details, including findings, of any third party review of Canada’s profit policy related to the AOPS and CSC, and (e) what are the details of all briefing materials related to the profit rate negotiated with ISI for the CSC and AOPS, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title or subject matter, (v) summary of contents, (vi) file number?
Response
Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has developed a formal risk management plan for the national shipbuilding strategy, NSS. The plan is informed by international best practices and helps to predict, identify and manage the key risks facing the NSS. Key risks include: timely analysis and decision-making, mitigated through a senior-level governance structure; human resources capacity, mitigated through hiring more procurement officers, training government analysts on estimating cost, and supporting for training and apprenticeship programs; and public communications, mitigated through annual reports, announcements, technical briefings, and other opportunities to provide Canadians with timely information on the NSS.
Contracts for AOPS, CSC and Halifax class frigate work periods are subject to procurement risk assessments conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board framework for the management of risk, the PSPC integrated risk management policy and the PSPC acquisitions program risk assessment framework. information on risk assessments in contracts is available online on the Buy and Sell website
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/3/1/5 and https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/6/5/15/1
Procurement risk factors are assessed on a continuous basis and steps are taken to support the effective administration of the contracts.
In response to (b), contracts issued to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., ISI, are negotiated to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost for the work, including the profit paid for performing the work. Profit ranges under the multi-ship contract, for work on the Halifax class frigates from 2008-21, the AOPS contracts and the CSC contracts are within the overall range of the policy on cost and profit as per the PSPC supply manual. Information on the profit policy is available online on the Buy and Sell website:
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/policy-and-guidelines/supply-manual/section/10
The details of the profit level negotiated and approved for these contracts cannot be disclosed as it is confidential commercial information which could prejudice the competitive position of ISI.
In response to (c), profits under the NSS are negotiated through individual contracts and are guided by the policy on cost and profit. As such, there is no total profit offered for work under the NSS per se.
In response to (d), no third party reviews of Canada’s profit policy related to the AOPS or CSC projects have been conducted. Contracts issued to ISI were negotiated to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost for the work, including the profit paid for performing the work. The negotiated profit is within the framework of the PSPC policy on cost and profit.
However, third party reviews have been conducted for both projects in support of contract negotiations, to undertake risk assessments prior to contract awards and amendments, and to evaluate the level of effort required for ISI to complete tasks. Details of these reviews cannot be disclosed as they contain confidential commercial information of ISI.
In response to (e), details of briefing material for the AOPS and CSC projects on negotiated profit rates cannot be disclosed as they contain confidential commercial information of ISI.

Question No. 238--
Mrs. Cathy McLeod:
With regard to the Office of the Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise: (a) when will a system for fielding complaints be operational; (b) what will be the process for assessing complaints when they arrive; (c) how many official complaints has the office received to date; and (d) if the answer to (c) is none, what steps has the ombudsperson and her staff undertaken since her appointment on April 8, 2019?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion and Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
In response to (a), the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, CORE, system for filing complaints is currently in development. It plans to implement phase one by launching a web portal for filing complaints in early May 2020. An electronic client management system, CRM, is under development and will be implemented as part of phase two of the complaint system, which will improve its accessibility.
In response to (b), CORE’s standard operating procedures have been drafted and will be made available for consultation with stakeholders in early January 2020. When the CORE website is launched, there will be an opportunity for broader public consultation.
In response to (c), CORE has not received any official complaints to date.
In response to (d), since the appointment of Sheri Meyerhoffer as ombudsperson in April 2019, numerous activities have been undertaken, including: establishing the office, i.e., staff, space, systems, procedures, meetings with more than 150 stakeholders as of November 30, 2019, speaking engagements, participation in numerous national and international events and conferences and the negotiation of memoranda of understanding with Global Affairs Canada and other government bodies.
150th Anniversary of Canadian ConfederationAga Khan IVAircraftAlbas, DanAlbertaAlghabra, OmarAngus, CharlieArctic and Offshore Patrol ShipsArmy of the Guardians of the Islamic Rev ...Arnold, MelAsian Infrastructure Investment Bank ...Show all topics
View Anthony Rota Profile